Prima facie case at discharge and functus officio bar renewal of an identical criminal challenge.

At the discharge stage under section 245 CrPC, the court must see whether the materials, if unrebutted, disclose grounds for presuming the accused's involvement; on the prosecution record, including seized documents, cheque encashment and alleged participation in a conspiracy to obtain unlawful refunds through false tax deduction certificates and forged documents, the petitioner failed to show absence of a prima facie case and discharge was refused. A fresh revision on the same grounds was also held not entertainable because the earlier identical challenge had already been dismissed and had attained finality, leaving the court functus officio unless that order was first set aside by a competent court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the materials did not disclose a prima facie case against her; (ii) Whether the fresh revision was maintainable in view of the earlier dismissal of an identical challenge and the principle of functus officio.

Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground that the materials did not disclose a prima facie case against her.

Analysis: At the stage of discharge, the court must see whether the materials, if unrebutted, can justify framing of charge and whether there is ground for presuming commission of the offence. The materials referred to by the prosecution included seizure of documents from the petitioner's premises, the alleged encashment of a cheque issued in the name of her concern, and the allegation of her participation in a conspiracy to secure unlawful refunds through false tax deduction certificates and forged documents. On that standard, the court held that the petitioner could not show absence of a prima facie case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge.

Issue (ii): Whether the fresh revision was maintainable in view of the earlier dismissal of an identical challenge and the principle of functus officio.

Analysis: The court found that the same grounds had already been raised and rejected in earlier proceedings. Once the earlier order had attained finality, the court had become functus officio and could not entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the earlier disposal was set aside by a competent court. Repeated petitions on the same basis were treated as attempts to delay the criminal trial.

Conclusion: The fresh revision was not entertainable on the same grounds.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order refusing discharge was upheld, and the criminal revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: At the discharge stage, the court need only determine whether the record discloses grounds for presuming the accused's involvement, and a previously decided challenge on the same grounds cannot be reopened before the same court after the prior order has attained finality.

---