Discretionary discharge under Section 245(3) depends on delay, readiness for trial, and the interests of justice in serious offences.

Relief under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is discretionary and is not granted automatically on delay alone. The Court indicated that discharge depends on whether the delay is attributable to prosecutorial default and whether discharge would serve the interests of justice. On the facts, repeated non-appearance and non-production of accused persons, including an absconding accused and difficulties in jail production, meant the matter was not ready for trial and the application was premature. In a case with multiple accused, the relevant appearance date could not be applied mechanically to only one accused, and the seriousness of the NDPS allegations weighed against discharge on a technical ground.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused were entitled to discharge under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that prosecution evidence had not been completed within four years from the date of appearance.

Analysis: The statutory relief under Section 245(3) is not automatic. The Court must consider whether the delay was attributable to prosecutorial dilatoriness and whether discharge would be in the interest of justice. On the facts, the case had not been ready for trial because of repeated non-appearance or non-production of accused persons, including an absconding accused and difficulties in securing jail production. The Court also held that, in a case involving multiple accused, the relevant date of appearance could not be treated mechanically with reference to only one accused; the application was in any event premature. The seriousness of the NDPS also weighed against discharge on a technical ground.

Conclusion: The accused were not entitled to discharge under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed and the refusal to discharge the accused was sustained, with a direction for expeditious trial.

Ratio Decidendi: Relief under Section 245(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is discretionary and can be refused where delay is not due to prosecutorial default and discharge would not serve the interest of justice, especially in a serious offence case.

---