Cheque Bounce Cases Should Ordinarily Be Sent To Mediation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Calls For Mediation In NI Act Matters 138 NI Act | Belated Plea Of Forged Signatures Cannot Be Used To Delay Trial: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Handwriting Expert Sections 332 & 333 IPC | Lawful Discharge Of Duty Must Be Proved, Mere Status As Public Servant Not Enough: Allahabad High Court Bus Conductor Accused of Assaulting Traffic Inspectors Custody With Biological Mother Cannot Ordinarily Be Treated As Illegal Detention: Delhi High Court Refuses Habeas Corpus For Return Of Child To Canada Foreign Custody Orders Must Yield To Welfare Of Child: Delhi High Court Refuses To Enforce Canadian Return Order Through Habeas Corpus Possible Criminal Racket Luring Young Girls Through Self-Proclaimed Peers And Tantriks Must Be Examined: J&K High Court Orders Wider Judicial Scrutiny Nomenclature Cannot Determine Constitutional Entitlement: Supreme Court Strikes Down Exclusion Of ‘Academic Arrangement’ Employees From Regularisation Testimony Of Related Witnesses Cannot Be Discarded Merely For Relationship: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction 149 IPC | Presence In Unlawful Assembly Is Enough For Murder Liability”: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Directly Recruited Engineers Entitled To Seniority From Date Of Initial Appointment Including Training Period: Supreme Court Section 32 Evidence Act | If There Is Even An Iota Of Suspicion, Dying Declaration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Framing A Case On Public Perceptions And Personal Predilections Ends Up In A Mess: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal In Alleged Parricide Arson Case When Oppression Petition Is Pending, Courts Must Ensure The Subject Matter Does Not Disappear Before Adjudication: Supreme Court Orders Status Quo In ₹1000 Crore Redevelopment Dispute Parties Cannot Participate In Arbitration And Later Challenge The Process Only After An Unfavourable Outcome : Supreme Court ICSID Clause Is Only A Fail-Safe Mechanism, Not A Restriction: Supreme Court Upholds Arbitral Tribunal’s Constitution In MCGM Dispute Passive Euthanasia | 'Right To Die With Dignity Is An Intrinsic Facet Of Article 21': Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal Of Life Support Medical Board Must Record Reasons Before Denying Disability Pension To Armed Forces Personnel: Kerala High Court Grants Disability Pension To Air Force Corporal 138 NI Act | Directors Cannot Be Prosecuted If Company Is Not Made Accused: Allahabad High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Cases Broad Daylight Removal of Goods by Known Creditors Is Not Theft: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Shopkeeper’s Insurance Claim Reservation Cannot Freeze Private Land Forever – Lapse Under Section 127 MRTP Act Operates Automatically: Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Transfer On Marriage Cannot Defeat Helper’s First Right To Promotion: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Anganwadi Helper’s Promotion Where Accusations Are Prima Facie True, Statutory Bar Under Section 43D(5) UAPA Operates; Bail Cannot Be Granted: Jharkhand High Court Bomb Hurled At Head Of Victim Shows Clear Intention To Kill: Kerala High Court Upholds Life Sentence In Kannur Political Murder Case Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment

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