Discharge at framing of charge requires only a prima facie case; grave suspicion and alleged duty evasion were enough to proceed.

At the discharge stage under Section 227 CrPC, the court must only see whether the record discloses sufficient ground for proceeding and whether the material creates a prima facie case or grave suspicion; a detailed assessment of defence pleas or rival evidence is impermissible. On the facts, the record suggested clearance of goods on invoice value rather than MRP-based valuation, a differential duty issue arising in investigation, and an alleged continuing arrangement to evade countervailing duty and secure wrongful gain. Subsequent payment of duty and reliance on settlement proceedings did not displace the prima facie prosecution case, so discharge was refused and the revision failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant was entitled to discharge at the stage of framing of charge on the basis of the material on record, and whether the allegations disclosed prima facie offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy.

Analysis: The governing test under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is whether the record discloses sufficient ground for proceeding. At that stage, the Court may sift and weigh the material only to the limited extent necessary to see whether a prima facie case exists or whether the materials give rise to grave suspicion. A detailed appraisal of defence contentions, disputed interpretation of valuation rules, or the probative value of rival materials is impermissible. On the facts, the record indicated that the goods were cleared on invoice value instead of MRP based valuation, that the differential duty issue had surfaced during investigation, and that the prosecution version alleged a continuing arrangement with departmental officers to evade countervailing duty and cause wrongful gain and corresponding loss. The subsequent payment of differential duty and reliance on settlement proceedings were treated as matters not sufficient to erase the prima facie case at the discharge stage, especially when prosecution had already been instituted and the court had to proceed on the prosecution material for limited purposes only.

Conclusion: The applicant was not entitled to discharge. The material disclosed a prima facie case and grave suspicion warranting trial, and the revision challenging rejection of discharge failed.

---