Plaintiff In Title Suit Must Prove Own Case On Independent Evidence, Cannot Rely On Weakness Of Defence: Supreme Court Advocate Commissioner's Failure To Localize Land Per Title Deeds Fatal To Encroachment Claim: Andhra Pradesh High Court Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon, Can Be Motive For False Implication As Much As For Crime: Allahabad High Court Parity In Bail: Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Accused In Robbery Case As Mastermind & Main Offenders Were Already Enlarged Specific Performance Denied If Buyer Fails To Prove Continuous Readiness With Funds; Part-Payment Can't Be Forfeited Without Specific Clause: Delhi High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept In Police Stations For Long, Courts Must Judiciously Exercise Power To Release On Supurdagi: Madhya Pradesh High Court Prolonged Incarceration Militates Against Article 21, Constitutional Principles Must Override Section 37 NDPS Rigors: Punjab & Haryana High Court Onus On Individual To Prove Claim Of 'Fear Of Religious Persecution' For Exemption Under Foreigners Act: Calcutta High Court Direct Recruits Cannot Claim Seniority From A Date Prior To Their Entry Into The Cadre: Orissa High Court Sale Deed Executed After Land Vests In State Confers No Title; Post-Vesting Purchaser Can’t Claim Compensation: Calcutta High Court No Right To Blanket Regularization For Contractual Staff; State Must Timely Fill Sanctioned Vacancies Under Reserved Quota: Supreme Court Non-Signatory Collaborator Under 'Deed Of Joint Undertaking' Can Invoke Arbitration Clause As A 'Veritable Party': Supreme Court Insolvency Proceedings Cannot Be Used As Coercive Recovery Mechanism For Complex Contractual Disputes: Supreme Court Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To Sale Cannot Challenge Transfer Under PTCL Act After Long Delay: Supreme Court SC/ST Act | Proceedings To Annul Sale Illegal If Initiated By Legal Heirs Who Were Parties To The Transaction: Supreme Court Consumers Cannot Be Burdened With Tariff Charges Beyond Period Of Service Delivery: Supreme Court Mere Non-Production Of Old Selection Records Or Non-Publication Of All Candidates' Marks No Ground To Direct Appointment: Supreme Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeals Against Acquittal In Sohrabuddin Shaikh Encounter Case; Says Prosecution Failed To Prove Conspiracy Dishonour Of Cheque Due To Signature Mismatch Or Incomplete Signature Attracts Section 138 NI Act: Supreme Court 138 NI Act | High Court Cannot Let Off Accused In NI Act Case By Ordering Only Cheque Amount Payment Without Interest Or Penalty: Supreme Court

Examine prima facie case for discharge under U/Sec 227 CrPC- Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court stated that while examining a discharge plea, a straightforward and appropriate examination can be made to determine whether a case is made out in the abstract.

Supreme Court observed that that the threshold of scrutiny necessary to decide an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to take into account the broad probabilities of the case and the overall impact of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case.

In this instance, the Trial Court rejected the discharge motion submitted by a defendant under the 1988 Prevention of Corruption Act (for having assets out of proportion to his known sources of income). The Trial Court declined to take this issue into consideration on the grounds that a roving inquiry is not allowed at the discharge stage. The appeal against this order was denied by the Patna High Court.

Supreme Court held that after reviewing the evidence that the prosecution has not shown a case beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant is entitled to a discharge.

The court also noted that a FIR filed twelve years after the alleged period's end made reference to the Appellant's allegedly disproportionate income for the years 1974 through 1988. Seven years after the FIR was registered, the chargesheet was finally filed. After almost ten years since the charge sheet was filed, the application for discharge was finally denied on March 28, 2016. "The High Court upheld the dismissal on October 5, 2016, which was seven months after it was initially announced. Finally, and most regrettably, this Court has been hearing the current SLP for the past six years. The Appellant retired from service in 2010, but he was left with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Now 72 years old, he. Beyond the previously mentioned illegality, continuing the prosecution would also be unfair "the court ruled.

Kanchan Kumar vs State of Bihar 

Latest Legal News