Charge Framing Must Rely on Prosecution Material Alone; discharge based on external findings was set aside.

At the stage of framing charge, the court must confine itself to the prosecution record and cannot undertake a mini-trial or rely on defence material. The chargesheet and supporting documents alleging fabrication and transfer of shares were required to be considered, while proceedings before the company law forum could not control that exercise. The trial court erred by giving decisive weight to external material and by not independently appreciating the investigation material. The discharge order was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration on charge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the discharge order was liable to be set aside on the ground that the trial court ignored the chargesheet material and wrongly relied on external material while considering the point of charge.

Analysis: The chargesheet contained detailed allegations and documentary material indicating alleged fabrication and transfer of shares, which were required to be considered at the stage of charge. The trial court placed decisive reliance on proceedings before the company law forum and treated those findings as controlling, despite the fact that the material collected during investigation had not been independently appreciated. At the stage of framing charge, the accused cannot introduce defence material or invite a mini-trial; the scope is confined to the prosecution record. The earlier view permitting consideration of accused-produced material was no longer good law in light of the later Supreme Court authority, and the material placed before the company law forum could not override the prosecution case at this stage.

Conclusion: The discharge order was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration on the point of charge.

---