Prima facie case at discharge stage bars pre-trial discharge when seizure, sanction, and co-accused issues need trial-level appreciation.

At the discharge stage, the court examines only whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion, and does not weigh evidence as at trial. Applying that standard, the Madras HC held that the accused was not entitled to discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC. The seizure of gold from the pillion rider, the accused's admitted presence on the motorcycle, the sanction objection, and the non-arrest of some co-accused raised matters for trial rather than discharge. The challenge to sanction lacked specific supporting material, and the revision was dismissed, leaving the prosecution to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was entitled to discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis that the prosecution material did not disclose a prima facie case. (ii) Whether the seizure of gold from the pillion rider, the alleged defect in sanction, and the non-arrest of some co-accused justified discharge at the pre-charge stage.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was entitled to discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the basis that the prosecution material did not disclose a prima facie case.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court is required only to see whether the materials disclose a prima facie case and not to evaluate their probative value as in a full trial. The court need not conduct a roving enquiry into the merits or weigh the evidence to decide whether conviction will ultimately follow. If the materials give rise to grave suspicion, the accused is not entitled to discharge.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to discharge on the ground that no prima facie case existed.

Issue (ii): Whether the seizure of gold from the pillion rider, the alleged defect in sanction, and the non-arrest of some co-accused justified discharge at the pre-charge stage.

Analysis: The accused had admitted driving the motorcycle at the time of interception, and the gold was recovered from the pillion rider on that motorcycle. Whether the accused was also involved in the occurrence raised a matter for trial and not for discharge. The objection regarding denial of cross-examination in adjudication did not assist the accused at the pre-charge stage, especially when he disowned ownership of the gold. The challenge to sanction was unsupported by any specific material showing apparent error. The non-arrest of some co-accused was not by itself a ground to discharge the accused when the prosecution had placed sufficient material, including statements and exhibits, to proceed.

Conclusion: The seizure circumstances, the sanction challenge, and the non-arrest of co-accused did not warrant discharge.

Final Conclusion: The revision was found to be without merit, and the order declining discharge was upheld, leaving the prosecution to proceed to trial.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage, the court must confine itself to whether the record discloses a prima facie case or grave suspicion against the accused, and questions requiring appreciation of evidence, including possession, sanction, and co-accused involvement, must ordinarily be left to trial.

---