https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157317 At the stage of framing charge and considering discharge, the court applies the limited test of whether the record, documents and statements disclose sufficient ground to proceed or create grave suspicion; it does not conduct a roving enquiry into credibility or probative value. On that standard, the prosecution material was found adequate, so refusal to discharge was upheld. Delay in prosecution and alleged inconsistencies in earlier statements may be relevant to prejudice under Article 21, but they do not by themselves justify quashing at the threshold unless the material is so deficient that no prima facie case can arise. The proceedings were therefore not quashed on delay alone. en-us Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Aug 2017 10:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157317 At the stage of framing charge and considering discharge, the court applies the limited test of whether the record, documents and statements disclose sufficient ground to proceed or create grave suspicion; it does not conduct a roving enquiry into credibility or probative value. On that standard, the prosecution material was found adequate, so refusal to discharge was upheld. Delay in prosecution and alleged inconsistencies in earlier statements may be relevant to prejudice under Article 21, but they do not by themselves justify quashing at the threshold unless the material is so deficient that no prima facie case can arise. The proceedings were therefore not quashed on delay alone. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157317