Discharge stage scrutiny: prima facie materials, including Section 108 statements and approver evidence, justified trial to proceed.

At the discharge stage, the court must only examine whether the prosecution materials disclose a prima facie case or strong suspicion, not conduct a mini-trial. Materials including Section 108 Customs Act statements, approver statements, and CCTV-related content were treated as sufficient to justify trial, while their full evidentiary value and need for corroboration were left for trial. The charge-sheet also contained specific allegations linking the accused to illegal gratification and criminal breach of trust. Earlier quashment contentions did not displace the materials against this accused, so the discharge petition was rejected and trial was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the discharge petition was liable to be allowed on the ground that the prosecution materials, including statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, approver statements, and CCTV material, did not disclose a prima facie case against the accused.

Analysis: The allegations against the accused included receipt of illegal gratification and criminal breach of trust, and the charge-sheet contained specific materials linking the accused to the alleged acts. The statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 were treated as substantive evidence for the limited purpose of assessing whether a trial should proceed, though their evidentiary value and the need for corroboration were matters for trial. The statements of persons who had been granted pardon assumed the character of approver evidence, which could not be discarded at the discharge stage. The Court also reiterated that the stage of discharge does not permit a meticulous appraisal of evidence or a mini-trial, and the court must only see whether a prima facie case or strong suspicion exists. The CCTV-related contentions and the reliance on the earlier quashment order did not negate the materials available against this accused.

Conclusion: The discharge petition was rightly rejected, as sufficient prima facie materials existed to proceed to trial.

---