Prima facie charge test at discharge stage; special costs and adverse remarks against defence counsel were removed.

At the stage of discharge or framing of charge under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the court must examine only whether the material discloses a prima facie ground for presuming commission of the offence, without weighing its probative value in detail. On the facts stated, witness statements, seizure material, identification proceedings and surrounding circumstances were sufficient to justify continuation of the prosecution, so discharge was refused. However, filing a discharge application could not by itself be treated as delaying tactics, so the special costs imposed and adverse remarks against defence counsel were set aside and expunged.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was entitled to discharge at the stage of consideration under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (ii) Whether the order imposing special costs and making adverse remarks against the defence advocate was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was entitled to discharge at the stage of consideration under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court is required to see only whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding and whether the material gives rise to a ground for presuming commission of the offence. The material collected in investigation, including the statements of witnesses, seizure of articles, identification proceedings, and the surrounding circumstances, was held to disclose a prima facie case. The Court applied the settled principle that the probative value of the material cannot be finally weighed at this stage, and that if the accused might have committed the offence, a charge can be framed.

Conclusion: The request for discharge was rightly rejected and the challenge to framing of charge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the order imposing special costs and making adverse remarks against the defence advocate was sustainable.

Analysis: The filing of an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could not itself be treated as delaying tactics. The imposition of costs on that basis was not justified. The adverse remarks against the defence advocate were also found unnecessary in the circumstances and liable to be removed.

Conclusion: The direction to pay special costs was set aside and the adverse remarks were expunged.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court interfered only to the limited extent of deleting the costs and expunging the remarks, while sustaining the refusal to discharge the accused and the consequent continuation of the trial.

Ratio Decidendi: At the stage of discharge or framing of charge, the Court must assess only whether the material creates a prima facie ground for presuming the offence, without undertaking a detailed evaluation of evidence or its probative value.

---