-
by sayum
24 October 2026 1:47 PM
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
