Revision petitions dismissed; framing charges upheld where investigation materials raise prima facie involvement and Section 24(a) presumption

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....The HC dismissed criminal revision petitions challenging orders rejecting applications for discharge and framing charges, thereby affirming the trial court's continuation of prosecution. The court held that sufficient material surfaced during investigation to prima facie presume involvement in the scheduled offence and to justify framing charges; the stage of discharge/framing does not permit a mini-trial or meticulous weighing of defence. The HC reiterated that prosecution must establish foundational facts - existence of proceeds of crime and the accused's involvement - after which the statutory presumption shifts under Section 24(a) and the accused must rebut it. Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting patent legal or procedural errors; no such error was found, so impugned orders were upheld.....