Revisional interference in discharge matters is limited where the record shows a prima facie case and evidence need not be re-appreciated.

In revision against refusal to discharge, interference is confined to patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or absence of material, and the revisional court will not re-appreciate evidence. The Court noted that call data records, voice communications, SMS exchanges, witness statements, and forensic material disclosed a prima facie case of involvement in an alleged bribery conspiracy, so the trial court's decision to frame charge was supported by the record. It further held that further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC is permissible and that absence of a Section 65-B(4) certificate was not a basis to discharge the accused at that stage.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order dismissing the discharge application and holding that there was a prima facie case for framing charge against the petitioner was illegal, perverse, or liable to be set aside in revision.

Analysis: The revision challenged the refusal to discharge the petitioner from prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code. The material relied on by the prosecution included call data records, voice communications, SMS exchanges, witness statements, and forensic reports indicating the petitioner's involvement in the alleged conspiracy to offer bribe to secure a vote. The Court held that the power under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited to examining legality, propriety, and regularity, and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence as in an appeal. It also noted that further investigation and filing of a supplementary report are permitted under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The absence of a certificate under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 was held not to be a ground to discharge the petitioner at that stage. On the material available, the trial court's view that a prima facie case existed for framing charge was found to be supported by record.

Conclusion: The order refusing discharge was upheld, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision against an order refusing discharge, interference is warranted only when the order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or lack of material; where the record discloses a prima facie case, the revisional court will not re-appreciate evidence or displace the trial court's view.

---