Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High 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