https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33679 Discharge under Section 227 CrPC was upheld because the prosecution record, even if taken at face value, did not disclose sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The court reiterated that the discharge stage requires only a prima facie assessment and not a meticulous weighing of evidence; a strong suspicion can justify charge only where the materials show involvement on their face. Co-accused confessional statements were treated as post-arrest statements outside Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and were also regarded as hit by Section 30 in the connected proceedings. With no independent or corroborative material left, the revision challenging discharge failed. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33679 Discharge under Section 227 CrPC was upheld because the prosecution record, even if taken at face value, did not disclose sufficient ground to proceed against the accused. The court reiterated that the discharge stage requires only a prima facie assessment and not a meticulous weighing of evidence; a strong suspicion can justify charge only where the materials show involvement on their face. Co-accused confessional statements were treated as post-arrest statements outside Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act and were also regarded as hit by Section 30 in the connected proceedings. With no independent or corroborative material left, the revision challenging discharge failed. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33679