Prima facie case requirement defeats discharge challenge where alleged smuggled gold and possession were not reliably proved.

Discharge under Section 245 CrPC is justified only where the prosecution material, if unrebutted, would not disclose a prima facie case for conviction. The prosecution failed to secure seizure of the alleged property and produced no reliable evidence beyond a Customs Officer's testimony to show that the biscuit at the spot was gold, that the boxes contained smuggled gold, or that the accused were in possession of the property. The evidence also did not prima facie establish conspiracy or allied offences. On that material, the discharge was proper because no prima facie case was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order discharging the accused was justified in the absence of prima facie proof that the articles recovered were smuggled gold and that the accused were in possession of such property.

Analysis: For discharge under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the material adduced by the prosecution must, if unrebutted, make out a prima facie case warranting conviction. The prosecution failed to secure seizure of the alleged property and led no reliable evidence, other than the testimony of the Customs Officer, to establish that the biscuit shown at the spot was in fact gold or that the boxes contained smuggled gold. The evidence also did not prima facie establish possession by the accused or the ingredients of conspiracy and allied offences.

Conclusion: The discharge was proper, as the prosecution evidence did not disclose a prima facie case against the accused.

---