Discharge Stage Is Not a Mini Trial: Orissa High Court Refuses to Quash Rejection of Discharge in 1996 Disproportionate Assets Case

“At This Stage… Court Is Not Expected to Conduct a Meticulous Evaluation of Evidence”, Orissa High Court on 12/02/2026, declined to interfere with an order rejecting discharge in a disproportionate assets prosecution under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, exercising jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, held that the “scope of consideration at the stage of discharge” is confined to seeing whether prosecution materials disclose a “strong prima facie case” and not to embark upon a “mini trial” by adjudicating disputed issues such as valuation, attribution of assets, and acceptability of explanations. The Court also found no breach of the earlier “limited remand” directions and directed the trial court to conclude the long-pending trial “preferably within six months.”

FIR of 1996, Charge-Sheet of 2011, Trial Still Stuck

The prosecution originated from an FIR dated 08.01.1996 alleging that during the check period 01.05.1982 to 29.12.1995, the petitioner, a public servant, amassed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. In the FIR, the Vigilance alleged acquisition of assets worth ₹12,90,129/- against known sources of income of ₹8,03,320/- and expenditure of ₹3,85,815/-, resulting in alleged disproportionate assets of ₹8,72,624/-. Upon submission of charge-sheet, the alleged disproportionate assets were enhanced to ₹14,38,435/-.

The judgment notes the petitioner’s service history spanning academia and civil services, including his entry into the Indian Forest Service on 01.05.1982 and later postings in the Odisha cadre. The Court also recorded that he continued in service, rose to senior rank, and retired on 31.01.2016.

After charge-sheet, when the case was posted for consideration of charge, the petitioner sought discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C., contending that lawful income—especially ancestral agricultural income—was ignored, certain assets were wrongly attributed to him, valuations were inflated, and expenditures were exaggerated despite supporting documents in the prosecution record.

“Remand Was Document-Specific”: Petitioner’s Complaint of Non-Compliance Meets a Clear No

The discharge application was first rejected by the Special Judge on 31.07.2023. The petitioner moved the High Court in CRLMC No.4265 of 2023. By order dated 07.02.2024, the High Court set aside the rejection because “many documents” forming part of the charge-sheet had not been considered and remitted the matter for fresh disposal.

When, after remand, the Special Judge again rejected discharge by order dated 20.05.2024, the petitioner returned to the High Court alleging that the trial court failed to comply with the “specific and limited remand,” arguing that material documents like property statements, bank communications, fixed deposit encashment records and income tax returns seized during investigation were not properly evaluated. He also urged that the charge-sheet allegedly included wife’s assets and pre-check-period properties without proper legal basis, invoking Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and relying on Supreme Court precedents including Nirankar Nath Pandey and J. Jayalalitha.

Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, however, drew a sharp boundary around what the remand required and what discharge jurisdiction permits. The Court held that the earlier remand did not require “elaborate reappreciation of the entire evidentiary material” nor did it mandate findings on the defence version item-by-item. The Court noted that the petitioner attempted to “re-argue the matter in its entirety” and invited adjudication on each asset entry—an exercise the Court called impermissible at discharge stage.

“Strong Suspicion Is Enough”: The Court Reaffirms the Discharge Threshold

The High Court reiterated settled law that at the discharge stage the court examines whether, assuming prosecution materials to be true, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. The Court relied on Sajjan Kumar v. CBI to underline that the enquiry is not about sufficiency for conviction but about whether there is “ground for presuming” the offence, and that a “roving enquiry” or “mini trial” is forbidden.

In the Court’s words:

“At this stage, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations taken at their face value and accepted in entirety, disclose the commission of the alleged offence. The Court is not expected to conduct a meticulous evaluation of evidence… by embarking upon a kind of mini trial.”

Applying that principle, the Court held that disputes over computation—valuation of assets, inclusion/exclusion of agricultural income, whether certain properties belong to the accused, and methodology—are ordinarily matters for trial in a Section 13(1)(e) prosecution. The Court cited State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and related authorities to reiterate that even “strong suspicion founded on material” is sufficient to frame charge, while the defence explanations are to be tested through evidence.

“No Patent Illegality or Perversity”: Inherent Jurisdiction Not to Stifle Prosecution

On the prayer to quash the order rejecting discharge under Section 528 BNSS (akin to inherent jurisdiction), the Court held interference is justified only in cases of “patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error.” Finding that the trial court had applied its mind, adverted to materials post-remand, and recorded prima facie satisfaction, the High Court refused to substitute its own assessment at the pre-charge stage.

The Court made it explicit that it expressed no opinion on merits and left all contentions—computation of disproportionate assets and admissibility/reliability of documents—open for the trial court to decide at the final stage.

“Endless Procrastination”: Trial Court Told to Finish the Case Preferably Within Six Months

The most stinging institutional observation came at the end. The Court recorded that the case “germinated” from an FIR of 08.01.1996, the charge-sheet was filed only on 31.03.2011—after 15 years—and the trial has continued for more than 15 years thereafter. The Court remarked that the delay is “obviously attributable, firstly, to the prosecution and then to the defence,” and directed the trial court to conclude the trial “as early as possible preferably within a period of six months.”

Defence Must Be Tested at Trial, Not at Discharge

The Orissa High Court’s ruling is a clear reaffirmation of the discipline of discharge jurisprudence in corruption prosecutions: disputes about valuation, income sources, attribution of assets, and computation methodology are not to be conclusively resolved at the threshold. Unless the charge is groundless or the order suffers from jurisdictional error or perversity, inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS cannot be used to short-circuit the prosecution.

By refusing to reopen a document-by-document adjudication at the discharge stage, and simultaneously demanding expedition in a case pending since 1996, the Court signalled that the arena for the petitioner’s factual defences is the trial—now ordered to reach its conclusion without further delay.

Date of Decision: 12/02/2026