Discharge at pre-trial stage requires only prima facie scrutiny; Section 108 Customs statements can sustain prosecution.

At the discharge stage, the court must only determine whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case and grave suspicion, without conducting a trial-like assessment of evidentiary weight. Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, along with the accused's statements, documents and witness evidence, were treated as sufficient material to proceed, and such Section 108 statements were recognised as substantive evidence, not on par with a police confession. On those materials, the petitioner was not entitled to discharge under Section 245(2) CrPC.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the prosecution for offences under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the Court is required only to see whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case and whether the material gives rise to grave suspicion against the accused. The Court is not to conduct a roving enquiry into the probative value of the evidence or assess the materials as if conducting a trial. The record included statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, the statements of the accused, and supporting documents and witness evidence. A statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 is admissible as substantive evidence and stands on a different footing from a police confession. On the materials placed, the prosecution had disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge and the revision challenging dismissal of the discharge petition failed.

---