This article is written by Sanjana Santhosh, a law student at Christ (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru. The article explains the concept and scope of discharge under Section 227 of the CrPC, along with the landmark case laws that explain the parameters of the application of the section. 

This article has been published by Sneha Mahawar.​​ 

Introduction

Black Law Dictionary defines “discharge” in the context of criminal law as “the opposite of charge; hence to release, liberate, annul, unburden, disencumber.” After the investigation into a crime is concluded and the charge sheet is filed against the accused, the provisions of discharge under Sections 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, come into play.

Download Now

When someone is falsely accused, they have the option of filing for a discharge application under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. If they are innocent of the charges against them, they might apply for discharge under the terms of this Code. In the absence of a prima facie case against the accused, where the evidence presented to the court is insufficient to satisfy the offence, the accused is entitled to be released.

A ‘discharge’ petition can be filed by someone who has been wrongfully accused of a crime if the evidence presented to the court is so weak that it makes a conviction impossible. The reasons for discharging the accused must be documented and made available to both the accused and the court.

An accurate representation of the circumstances surrounding a person’s potential conviction cannot be determined unless there is a firm grasp on the reasons for releasing him from prosecution. There are three legal questions that must be answered in order to fully grasp the subject at hand.

  1. In what ways might a suspect be released from custody or brought up on charges?
  2. What level of scrutiny is applied when deciding whether to drop charges or exonerate an accused person?
  3. What information is necessary to decide if a discharge or framing charge is appropriate?

Scope of Section 227 of CrPC

In the case of Richard Winn Harcuss v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1975), Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, are meant to guarantee that the court is convinced that the allegation against the accused is not groundless and that there is some substance for proceeding against him.

The accused is made aware of the evidence that will be used to convict him at trial by reading the charges that will be filed against him. Discharges are currently only possible through the Court of Sessions, following the implementation of the new Code, also known as Act No. 2 of 1974. In matters only triable by the Court of Sessions, the trial judge is required by law to dismiss the case against the accused upon the defendant’s fulfilment of the four conditions listed in Section 227:

  1. Review of the case file and any supporting materials;
  2. Listening to the defence and prosecution’s arguments;
  3. The absence of any basis for continuing with the prosecution of the accused;
  4. Documenting reasons for dismissal.

Before a charge is brought against someone, there must be “grave suspicion concerning the conduct of the offence by the accused.” The former does not call for the judge to examine the documents. The latter allows for some selective examination of evidence. Therefore, there are two sets of evidence that are being compared when the term “prima facie evidence” is being used, and both of them are at distinct phases of the criminal process. It’s important to keep in mind that there are varying phases to a trial. Consequently, there has to be a range of standards for evaluating evidence. At the beginning of the trial, suspicion is just that; at the end, when all the evidence has been presented by both the prosecution and the defence, it is a critical analysis and a rigorous assessment of all that has been presented. So, the evidence is appreciated at a micro level during the charge-drafting phase and at a macro level during the sentencing phase of a trial. As a result, the mental degree of appreciation shifts at each stage of the criminal process, going from a superficial level to a more in-depth level.

At the Sections 227 and 228 phase, the law is well decided that the court must evaluate the material and papers on record to determine if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at face value, disclose the existence of all the components constituting the accused offence. It is unrealistic to assume that a court, even at a preliminary level, will accept anything the prosecution says without question, especially if it runs counter to common sense or the overall probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is required to examine the evidence in order to determine whether there is a basis for the presumption that the accused has committed the offence or whether there is not any sufficient ground for proceeding against him. This examination cannot be conducted with the intention of reaching the conclusion that it is not likely to result in a conviction. Instead, the court must make this determination in order to determine whether or not there is a basis for the presumption.

Parameters for application of Section 227 of CrPC

Supreme Court precedents have established the limits within which this authority may be exercised.

In State of Karnataka Lokayukta v. M. R. Hiremath (2019), the Supreme Court noted that when deciding whether or not to grant a discharge, the court must assume that the material brought on record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material to determine whether or not the facts emerging from the material, taken at face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessitating a discharge.

The Supreme Court noted in State of Tamil Nadu v. N. Suresh Rajan and Ors. (2014) that the true significance of the materials has to be taken into account at the stage of discharge, and the Court is not expected to go deep into the issue in a different case, citing earlier decisions on the subject of discharge. The question that must be asked is whether or not sufficient evidence exists to convict the accused. A charge can be framed if the court believes the evidence presented in court has some probative value that the accused committed the crime, but the court must find sufficient evidence of guilt in order to convict the defendant. The Court further noted in this case that a mini-trial is not permissible at the time of dismissal under the legislation.

However, things are set apart in the case of M. E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020). The Supreme Court noted that the defence of an accused person cannot be considered at the stage where the accused person wants to be released under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. When an accused person requests dismissal under Section 227, no consideration of the accused’s defence is to be made. The documentation produced by the prosecution, if any, constitutes “the record of the case” under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. At the stage of charge formulation, the accused has no right to produce any document under the Code. At the stage of drafting the charge, the contribution of the accused is to be restricted to the material presented by the police.

Guiding principles on discharge and framing charges

The following six principles were developed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in two separate cases, Vijayan v. State of Kerala and Another (2010) and Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal and Others (1979):

  1. While deciding whether or not to file formal charges under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the judge has the unquestioned authority to carefully examine the evidence in order to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been established against the accused. It would be up to the specifics of each case to judge whether or not there was a prima facie case.
  2. If the evidence presented to the court raises substantial doubts about the accused’s innocence and fails to provide satisfactory explanations for those doubts, the court has every right to bring charges and proceed with the trial.
  3. The court must take into account the overall likelihood of the case and not only operate as a post office or a mouthpiece for the prosecution. A trial-like analysis of the case’s merits and assessment of the evidence cannot be conducted ad hoc.
  4. The court can decide to file charges if it believes, based on the evidence presented, that the accused is guilty of the crime in question.
  5. The probative value of the evidence cannot be discussed when the charges are being drafted, but the court must apply its judicial mind to the evidence presented in order to be convinced that the commission by the accused was possible.
  6. At the junctures of Sections 227 and 228 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence, but the court cannot be expected to presume that the prosecution’s story is the absolute truth.

Discharge in different trial cases

The discharge application is the legal recourse provided by the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the wrongfully accused. If he is innocent of the charges against him, he might apply for discharge under the terms of this Code. In the absence of a prima facie case against him and in the event that the evidence presented to the Court does not suffice to fulfil the offence, he is entitled to be discharged. According to the CrPC, there are two broad categories of criminal cases:

  1. Cases instituted based on police reports.
  2. Cases instituted on complaint.

The Criminal Procedure Code specifies the following four distinct types of trial procedures:

  1. Trial before a Court of Sessions;
  2. Trial of warrant cases by Magistrates;
  3. Trial of summons cases by Magistrates;
  4. Summary trials.

Discharge of accused in warrant cases on the basis of a police report

A person who has been falsely accused has the option of filing an application for “discharge” under the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973. It is possible for someone to seek dismissal from his position if he has been subjected to false accusations. If the court does not have enough evidence to find him guilty, he is entitled to be released. After an investigation by the police has been completed, a charge sheet is filed under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court then decides what charges to bring against the accused and holds a trial. However, the accused may be released before formal charges are filed if he or she meets the requirements of Sections 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is only in circumstances involving a warrant that the accused may employ these measures.

When reviewing a motion to discharge, the court must take into account the following information:

  • Report and charge sheet filed by police pursuant to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
  • The prosecution and the defence both had sufficient time to present their cases.
  • The judge rationalises that the accusations are without merit.

When accused shall be discharged in Sessions trial

After hearing the prosecution’s and defence’s arguments and reviewing the record of the case and any documents submitted therewith, if the judge determines that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record reasons for doing so, as defined by Section 227 of the Code. Situations in which the Sessions Judge must order a discharge by law:

  1. If a previous high court ruling prevents him from continuing, 
  2. In cases where there is a statute of limitations against pursuing a prosecution,
  3. When presented evidence is insufficient,
  4. If there is no basis in law for pursuing criminal charges, or
  5. Where no approval has been granted.

In Tapati Bag v. Patipaban Ghosh (1993), it was held that if the court determines that there are insufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused, the accused must be discharged. However, if the court determines that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence that is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, the charge against the accused must be framed. Once charges are filed, the defendant goes to trial and is found not guilty or guilty and sentenced; he cannot be released. Once Section 228 charges are filed, the accused cannot be released under Section 227 of the code. The CrPC does not take into account dismissal after a charge has been framed.

In the case of State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977), to allow the superior court to evaluate the illegality of the impugned order, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sessions Judge must record his reasons while examining a discharge petition under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The trial court’s refusal to discharge the accused without providing a rationale in its impugned order is a fundamental flaw in this instance.

In Sanjay Gandhi v. Union of India (1978), it was held that there exists no such provision that would allow the Magistrate to release the accused. Only a trial court, not the court of the judicial magistrate, has the authority to issue a discharge order for offences that can only be tried in a court of session.

In Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another (1996), the Supreme Court ruled that it would be unjust to propose that the court should not look into any evidence presented by the accused at the stage of taking cognizance or framing of charge if that evidence could potentially damage the case’s viability. It was determined that the purpose of allowing the accused to make representations, as envisioned by Section 227 of the Cr.P.C., is to allow the court to determine whether or not to conduct the trial. Why would the court rule against the accused by claiming that such documents need to be submitted only after wasting a lot of time in the name of trial proceedings if the materials produced by the accused even at that early stage will settle the issue? In addition, the trial court would be well within its rights to evaluate even material that the accused may produce at the stage specified in Section 227 of the Code, as nothing in the Code restricts the scope of such an audience to oral arguments.

In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat v. State of U.P. (2013), when deciding whether to file charges, a judge must examine all of the evidence at their disposal to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to assume guilt. It was held that the weight of the evidence in favour of guilt is not subject to evaluation. During the hearing on the discharge application, the accused could offer his arguments based on the evidence supplied by the prosecution, but cannot, however, submit fresh evidence, and the court is under no need to do so. The trial judge has the authority to grant a discharge regardless of the verdict if there are two plausible explanations for the events and one of them raises mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion. 

Application for discharge in cases instituted based on police reports and otherwise

The charge sheet with specific allegations is the final report filed by the police under Section 173 of the CrPC, the commission of which constitutes a ‘punishable offence’ if proven. The accused has the right to seek “discharge” even in a private complaint brought under Section 200 of the CrPC. However, the process for dismissing a warrant case initiated on the basis of a police report and a warrant case initiated on the basis of a private complaint submitted under Section 200 CrPC is very different:

  • The Magistrate in a warrant­ case instituted on police complaint must review the final report, the statement of witnesses recorded under Section 161 of CrPC, documents, and, if he deems it necessary, he may also examine the accused. If he concludes that the charges (allegations) are without merit, he may either discharge the accused under Section 239 of CrPC or frame charges under Section 240 of CrPC. However, the process for charging or dismissing a case initiated by a private complaint differs significantly from that of a case initiated by the police. 
  • There will be only one opportunity for cross-examination in criminal prosecution. However, there will be two cross-examinations in a case involving a private complaint.
  • At the hearing, the accused will be examined in accordance with Sections 227 and 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, marking the official start of the trial in a police case. However, once evidence has been recorded per Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code, charges can be filed under Section 246 and the trial can begin.

In Manakshi Bala v. Sudhir Kumar (1994), it was held that the magistrate must take into account the police report and any other documents submitted pursuant to Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code before making a decision on whether or not to discharge the accused. If the charge is without merit, the magistrate must discharge the accused pursuant to Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

In Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal (2009), while hearing a petition for dismissal under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Supreme Court ruled that a magistrate must examine the specific allegations against each defendant in order to determine whether or not a prima facie case has been established and whether there is reasonable suspicion that the petitioner is guilty.

In Rajesh Bajaj v. State NCT Delhi and others (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that while hearing a petition for discharge, the High Court or Magistrate should not use a rigid hyper-technical approach, testing the accused’s guilt by weighing the ingredients of the crime against which he was accused. It is acceptable to make such an effort during the trial phase, but not the pre-trial phase under Sections 239 or 482 of the CrPC. 

Discharge of accused in warrant cases instituted on complaint

The Magistrate is required to review the evidence presented under Section 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and if he concludes that there is insufficient evidence to convict the accused, he is to discharge the accused under Section 245(1) of the Code. Otherwise, a charge must be drafted under Section 246(1) CrPC if the magistrate does not. If it is determined at any time before trial that the charges against the accused are without merit, as required by Section 245(2) CrPC, the accused will be released. So even at any previous stage of the case, if there is a cause for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, the magistrate has to establish the charge.

Section 245(1) and Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are distinct from one another. The Magistrate, in determining whether or not to convict the accused based on the evidence presented to him by the prosecution under Section 244, has the benefit of the prosecution’s case presented to him under Section 245(1). If the Magistrate determines that there is insufficient evidence to convict the accused, the accused will be released from custody under Section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the rules change when Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code is examined. In accordance with subsection (2), the magistrate may order the accused’s discharge at any time before such evidence is presented in court. In order to be released from custody under Section 245(2) CrPC, the magistrate must first determine that the accusation is without merit. Since no evidence exists at that point, there is no need to evaluate it. Under Section 244 CrPC, the Magistrate may make this determination before the accused appears or is produced before the court or before any evidence is led. This is made abundantly evident by the phrase “at any previous stage of the case” found in Section 245(2) of the CrPC.

In Ajoy Kumar Ghose v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2009), it was held that Sections 245(1) and 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code are distinct from one another:

  • Section 245(1) requires the Magistrate to assess whether, if the prosecution’s case were to go uncontested, the accused should be found guilty. This is because the Magistrate has the benefit of the prosecution’s evidence presented under Section 244. When the Magistrate hears that there is nothing in the evidence that may lead to an indictment, he or she will proceed to release the accused under Section 245(1) CrPC.
  • But the law states otherwise under Section 245(2) CrPC. The Magistrate has the authority to discharge the accused at any time prior to the leading of such evidence (i.e., at any time before the case reaches the stage of hearing such evidence), per Section 245(2). However, in order to be released from custody under Section 245(2) CrPC, the Magistrate must conclude that the accusation is without merit. At that point, there won’t even be a chance for evidence to be considered, as the complainant won’t be able to call any witnesses other than the ones who signed the sworn affidavits under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In Yeduruparthi Kamakshamma v. T. Taranadh (1979), it was decided that the Magistrate has the authority to release the accused under Section 245(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code at an earlier stage if he makes a decision that the facts do not amount to a criminal offence. In order for the order to be valid, there must be a valid justification for it.

Discharge in a summons case

In a “summons case,” the accused may be questioned in accordance with Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The specifics of the crime must be explained to the accused as required under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Unlike in a Sessions case (under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) or a warrant case (under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), a magistrate does not have the authority to discharge an accused person in a summons case.

It is clear from a cursory reading of Section 251 of the CrPC that the magistrate in a summons trial does not have the authority to discharge the accused or drop the proceedings. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court ruled in K.M. Matthew v. State of Kerala (1991) that the Magistrate may drop the proceedings if he is convinced on reconsideration of the complaint that there is no offence for which the accused might be tried in a summons case. The magistrate can end the case whenever he chooses, and there is no rule or regulation that must be followed if he so prefers.

In Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others (2004), the Court considered whether or not the legal argument laid down in K.M. Mathew’s case was accurate. A three-judge bench ruled that an accused may seek redress under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code if a magistrate’s issuance of process is without legal authority, and that a magistrate lacks the authority to reconsider or revoke his own order issuing process.

In Subramanian Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and another (2004), the Supreme Court upheld the rule that was set up in the Adalat Prasad case (2004). The Supreme Court said that an appeal, review, or recall of the order of issuance of process under Section 204 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not possible in a case involving a summons. It was also noted that there is no provision that authorises the magistrate to drop the proceedings once the accused has been summoned and their plea has been recorded in accordance with Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In Amit Sibal v. Aravind Kejriwal (2016), the issue of whether or not the magistrate in a summons case based on a complaint has the authority to drop proceedings and discharge the accused arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Defamation under Section 500 of the IPC, dishonour of checks under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and other cases of relatively private character that are in the nature of summons cases based on private complaints, in which police opposed investigating and no charge sheet was filed, give this question great practical significance.

In Arvind Kejriwal and Others v. Amit Sibal and Another (2014), according to the single judge of the Delhi High Court, the Magistrate has the authority to hear the accused person’s explanation of the content of the accusation and, if no offence is made out, to discontinue the case. The case was taken to the Supreme Court of India. In the absence of any explicit provision in the CrPC, the Magistrate has no authority to dismiss a case. In contrast to summons cases based on private complaints, proceedings can be terminated under Section 258 of the CrPC in cases based on F.I.R. and charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC. However, this provision is noticeably lacking in cases where a summons is issued due to a private complaint.

However, in Dhariwal Tobaco v. State of Maharashtra (2009), the Supreme Court made it clear that even though there is no provision to discharge the accused in summons cases, a dual remedy is available by invoking both Section 482 of the CrPC and Section 397 of the CrPC.

This view prevailed for a long time before the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012). It was determined that the Magistrate can dismiss the case and release the accused person on a summons. It is further noted that the duty cast upon the trial court to carefully go through the allegations in the charge sheet or private complaint, as the case may be, considering the evidence to come to a conclusion regarding the involvement of the accused is inherent in Section 251 of the CrPC when an accused appears before the trial court pursuant to the summons issued under Section 204 of the CrPC. If the defendant admits guilt, the magistrate must explain the nature of the charges and obtain a plea of guilt or no contest in accordance with Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, or else discharge him. 

In R.K. Agarwal v. Brig Madan Lal Nassa and others (2016), the Delhi High Court ruled that the Magistrate has no competence to discharge the accused in a summons case for the following reasons:

  • A case that results in a summons cannot be dismissed based on the police department’s final report or a private citizen’s complaint.
  • Due to the lack of discharge authority under Section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the magistrate cannot rely on Section 239 in a case involving a summons. To finally put this matter to rest, however, a ruling from the courts is necessary.

Procedure of discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. 

Dismissal of an accused person in a Sessions case is addressed in Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is also important to examine Section 226 of the Criminal Procedure Code as a whole. 

  1. Consideration of the accused’s submission.
  2. A lack of adequate grounds for proceeding against the accused.
  3. Legally sound principles for drafting charges. 

Difference between discharge and acquittal

According to Section 227, the judge must release the defendant and justify his reasoning if he decides there is insufficient evidence to proceed with the case after reviewing the evidence and hearing arguments from both the defence and prosecution. The judge will grant an acquittal under Section 232 if, after hearing the prosecution’s case, he or she concludes that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the accused committed the crime.

The judge may rule in favour of the accused after hearing their side of the story and verifying the evidence, but only if he or she is convinced that there is sufficient evidence to proceed with the case. He or she would then issue a discharge order and document the basis for the decision. Whereas, when the court determines that there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant, it will issue a judgement of acquittal.

An acquittal in a criminal case is a finding that the accused is not responsible for the crime. On the other hand, if the magistrate decides there is insufficient evidence to continue the case, he or she will issue a discharge.

The accused gets released before formal charges are even drafted. Acquittal, on the other hand, occurs after charges have been brought against a person.

If strong and material evidence is found after a discharge, further procedures can be initiated. In contrast, acquittal restricts the second trial relating to the same offence or a different offence, under the same circumstances.

The distinction between acquittal and discharge can be broken down by looking at their respective definitions and statutory contexts:

  1. The concepts of autrefois and double jeopardy forbid retrial on the same accusations within the same jurisdiction after an acquittal. However, even being released from the case, the person could be re-arrested for questioning on the same basis.
  2. While acquittals are possible in situations when there is no complainant, the complaint is withdrawn, or the crime is compounded. When there is insufficient evidence to convict a person, a release may be granted.
  3. The accused gets released before formal charges are even drafted. Acquittal, on the other hand, occurs after charges have been brought against a person.
  4. An acquittal order is issued only once the relevant investigation and trial have concluded. Since the accused has been exonerated by the court, the verdict of “not guilty” has been officially announced. The opposite of this is a discharge, which occurs when no evidence is found to support continuing the investigation into the accused. Therefore, it does not establish the defendant’s innocence.
  5. If strong and material evidence is found after a discharge, further procedures can be initiated. In contrast, an acquittal prevents a retrial for the same or a different crime based on the same evidence.

Legal position vis-à-vis judgements passed by Supreme Court

State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi (2004)

Comparing Section 207 of the 1898 Code to the new Section 227 of the CrPC, it was noted in this case that:

The situation is clarified when the Code’s design is analysed in light of the old Code’s provisions from 1898. There was nothing like Section 227 in the previous Code. The purpose of including Section 227 in the Code is to save the accused from the kind of relentless persecution that inevitably comes with a lengthy criminal trial. When the evidence acquired during an investigation falls short of the minimum legal requirements, this is meant to stop the accused from being harassed. 

Dilawar Balu Kurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002)

In this case, Y.B. Chavan College in Kolhapur, State of Maharashtra, is administered by the Municipal Corporation and is connected to Shivaji University, Kolhapur, where the appellant worked as a lecturer. A letter requesting the appellant to serve as an examiner for the B.Com. IInd Year examination in Accountancy (theory) was accepted.  Ashok Salokhe, who was taking the aforementioned exam on May 1, 1986, came up to the appellant and indicated that he was unable to pass the paper that was going to be examined by the appellant. In exchange for Rs.400/-, the appellant scored out the prior marks given on the answer script and raised the number to help the student pass the exam in question. When the university’s registrar learned about the incident, he confiscated the appellant’s answer sheets. The university’s deputy registrar had filed a First Information Report with the police against the appellant. The appellant was charged under Section 477A of the IPC and Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act of 1947. The appellant sought to have the charges against her dismissed by filing a Writ Petition with the High Court of Judicature in Bombay according to Article 227 of the Constitution in conjunction with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court received a revision petition of an application filed with the Special Judge pursuant to Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

There was a realisation in this case that the commitment inquiry under the old Code was taking too long and not accomplishing much. With the goal of speedy case resolution in mind, the Code no longer requires that kind of investigation. If the accused is not released under Section 227, the Court of Session is responsible for drafting the charge under Section 228 rather than the committal magistrate. Additionally, this new Code provision must be considered with the others as the question is resolved.

State of M.P. v. S.B. Johari and Ors. (2000)

In this case, the defendants are accused of forging documents and misusing their positions to embezzle money from the government while purchasing drugs for the S.G. Cancer Hospital in Indore. Many of the items allegedly have not been purchased, but the full sum has been paid using fraudulent vouchers. Evidence suggests that several medications were acquired at nearly half price in Jabalpur. The learned Sessions Judge framed the aforementioned charge after reviewing the evidence. By agreeing with the defence and taking into account the evidence presented, the High Court dismissed the charges against the respondents, and appeals were filed.

The Supreme Court has ruled in this case that a charge may be dismissed if there is no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial because the evidence the prosecutor intends to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused cannot show that the accused committed the particular offence, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any.

Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and Anr. (2019)

After learning that the accused were peddling counterfeit currency at a discount, the complainant went to the location in question armed with panchas, where he encountered three individuals engaged in monetary transactions and, upon searching their possessions, discovered several fake Saudi Arabian Riyals of varying denominations. Upon questioning, the defendant said that he had imported counterfeit cash notes from Mumbai and kept them at the applicant’s location. The applicant had requested the notes and received them. The defendant was then detained, and the complainant-respondent filed the FIR in question.

It was held in this case that when it comes to drafting the charge in accordance with the court’s outlined principles, the court is not expected to perform clerical duties. Indeed, the court must sort through the evidence. The evidence presented and relied upon by the prosecution is the evidence that must be filtered. A careful examination is not required because the court is not acting as a trial judge hearing arguments after all evidence has been presented following a full-fledged trial, and the issue is not whether the prosecution has made out the case for the conviction of the accused. With the current evidence, a case can be built for the accused to stand trial; this is all that is required.

Conclusion

Although Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, gives guidance as to the scope of inquiry for the purpose of discharging an accused, it only states that the “Judge shall discharge where he thinks that there is no sufficient reason for putting the accused on trial.” Instead of deciding guilt or innocence during the charging process, the trial itself will do so. Therefore, the court does not need to conduct a detailed investigation. The purpose of the discretionary discharge granted by Section 227 is to spare an innocent individual the stress of going to trial or facing criminal charges. It is important to let the law take its course, since the Sessions Judge has the power to use whatever facts and circumstances he has studied after having the parties frame a charge and also make a ruling in support thereof. Unless an obvious wrong is staring the High Court in the face, it should exercise restraint.

The current judicial system places severe constraints on the availability of discharge. The prosecution only needs to show a prima facie case against the accused from the evidence on record at the stage of framing of charges before the trial may begin. However, the accused may choose to rely on impeccable evidence in seeking his discharge at the time of the Discharge Application’s decision, and if the Judge is convinced on the basis of such an unimpeachable record that the accused is entitled to an absolute wrongful conviction for the alleged crime, it is perfectly legal for the accused to be discharged.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Does the court merely evaluate the complainant’s allegations or does it also take into account the complainant’s evidence that the accused is innocent?

The court is required to take into account any remarks or information in the record that might exonerate the defendant while drafting the accusation against him or her. Judges are required by law to act as neutral arbiters by reviewing all of the available evidence in a case and giving equal weight to each side. He is ineligible to serve in either the prosecutor’s office or as a spokesperson for the prosecution.

Whether the evidence produced by the accused can be investigated by the court that presided over the session?

The Supreme Court of India ruled in the case of Satish Mehra v. Delhi Administration and Another, that it is unfair to suggest that no such material should be considered by the court at the stage of framing of charges if the accused produces any convincing material at that time that might drastically affect the very sustainability of the case. According to the ruling, the purpose of allowing the accused the opportunity to make representations, as envisioned in Section 227 of the CrPC, is to help the court decide whether or not to proceed with the trial. The trial court might take into account the material submitted by the accused at the stage observed under Section 227 of the Code, as nothing in the Code confines the range of such hearings to only oral arguments.

In cases involving a warrant, under what circumstances can the accused be released?

After conducting their investigation, the police often file a final charge sheet with the court under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Afterward, the relevant court will begin the trial of the accused. A person may be released from custody before formal charges are filed in accordance with Sections 239 and 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The only time the accused can invoke these provisions is in warrant instances.

References

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here