Discharge Cannot Be Denied Without Judicial Reasoning — Sessions Court Not a Post Office for Prosecution: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Rejection of Discharge Petition Must Reflect Application of Mind — Prior Dismissal of Revision Against Cognizance Not a Bar Under Section 227 CrPC - In a crucial ruling reinforcing the procedural safeguards under criminal law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court set aside a Sessions Court’s order rejecting a discharge petition under Section 227 of the CrPC, finding that the order was cryptic, unreasoned, and legally unsustainable.

Justice Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, while remanding the matter back for fresh consideration, made it clear that a discharge petition cannot be mechanically dismissed — especially not on the ground that a prior revision against the cognizance order under Section 190 CrPC was dismissed.

"The learned Sessions Judge failed to assign any reasons, let alone valid and sustainable reasons, for dismissing the discharge petition. Such an order is vitiated in law," the Court observed.

The petitioner, Pinnika Madhusudhana Rao, was arrayed as Accused No.2 in a murder case (S.C. No. 47 of 2023) before the Sessions Court in Ongole, arising from an FIR registered by Markapur Town Police. He was charged under Sections 143, 147, 120-B, 323, 341, and 302 read with 149 IPC.

After cognizance was taken under Section 190 CrPC, the petitioner previously challenged the same in revision, which was dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, which the Sessions Court also rejected without recording any reasons.

Challenging that rejection, the petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Discharge Under Section 227 CrPC Is a Distinct Remedy — Prior Dismissal of Cognizance Revision Not a Bar

The Court emphatically held that Section 227 CrPC and Section 190 CrPC operate under entirely different legal standards.

"The rejection of the earlier revision challenging cognizance under Section 190 CrPC does not preclude the petitioner from filing a discharge petition under Section 227," the Court ruled.

While Section 190 CrPC deals with taking cognizance based on prima facie allegations, the Sessions Judge under Section 227 CrPC is required to scrutinize the charge-sheet, apply judicial mind, and sift through the materials to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed to trial.

"The committal court merely examines whether allegations disclose the commission of an offence; whereas the Sessions Court must go further and consider the material to evaluate sufficiency of grounds," the Court clarified.

Rejection Without Reasons Violates Principles of Natural Justice

The High Court found the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 to be devoid of judicial reasoning and in violation of natural justice.

“A reasoned decision is not merely a formality — it is the cornerstone of a fair trial,” the Court emphasized.

It was noted that the discharge petition had raised specific contentions — including lack of identification by witnesses, exonerating statements of co-accused, and the absence of direct evidence linking the petitioner to the crime. The Sessions Court, however, failed to deal with any of these, dismissing the petition solely because an earlier revision had been rejected.

Such mechanical rejection, the High Court held, defeats the object of Section 227, which empowers the Court to filter out cases lacking foundational merit before trial commences.

The Court supported its reasoning with a detailed analysis of binding Supreme Court precedents, including:

• Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, AIR 1979 SC 366
• P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, (2010) 2 SCC 398
• State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, (2023) 17 SCC 688
• State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap, (2021) 11 SCC 191
• Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon International Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 492

Quoting Prafulla Kumar Samal, the Court reiterated:

“The Judge is not a mere post office. At the stage of Section 227, he must sift the materials to determine if a case for trial exists. A discharge petition must be addressed with full application of mind and supported by recorded reasons.”

Similarly, P. Vijayan and Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao affirmed that while detailed evaluation of evidence is not required, the Judge must indicate reasons showing how the material discloses sufficient ground to proceed.

• “Discharge under Section 227 CrPC is not barred merely because cognizance has been upheld earlier.”
• “Sessions Court must assign reasons while rejecting a discharge petition — failure to do so violates procedural fairness.”
• “Cryptic, mechanical orders defeat the very purpose of judicial scrutiny under Section 227.”
• “Accused must know the grounds on which trial is being ordered — natural justice demands transparency at every stage.”

Holding that the Sessions Court’s order was legally unsustainable, the High Court:

“Set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 in Crl.M.P.No.31 of 2025 in S.C.No.47 of 2023 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ongole.”

It remanded the matter for fresh adjudication of the discharge petition, with the following directions:

• The Trial Court must hear both parties afresh, apply its judicial mind, and pass a reasoned order under Section 227 CrPC.
• The exercise must be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of the High Court's order.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2025