Section 239 CrPC - Court Can Only Look Into Prima Facie Case & Decide Whether Prosecution Case Is Groundless: Supreme Court

In a judgment delivered on Monday (5 September 2022), the Supreme Court explained the ambit and scope of exercise of power to discharge an accused under Sections 239 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The court observed that the only consideration at the stage of Section 239/240 is as to whether the allegation/charge is groundless.The test which may be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever, the bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and JB Pardiwala observed.The Court was considering an appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Madras that allowed criminal revision applications preferred by the accused discharging them from the prosecution under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.While holding that the High Court has not been able to comprehend the true scope and ambit of Section 239 CrPC, the Apex Court bench made the following significant observations:Discharge and Three SituationsThe court noticed that the CrPC contemplates discharge in three situations discharge of the accused by the Court of Sessions under Section 227 in a case triable by it, cases instituted upon a police report are covered by Section 239 cases instituted otherwise than on a police report are dealt with in Section 245Sections 227 and 239 resply provide for discharge being made before the recording of evidence and the consideration as to whether the charge has to be framed or not is required to be made on the basis of the record of the case, including the documents and oral hearing of the accused and the prosecution or the police report, the documents sent along with it and examination of the accused and after affording an opportunity to the parties to be heard. On the other hand, the stage for discharge under Section 245 is reached only after the evidence referred to in Section 244 has been taken. 54. Despite the slight variation in the provisions with regard to discharge under the three pairs of Sections referred to above, the settled legal position is that the stage of framing of charge under either of these three situations, is a preliminary one and the test of "prima facie" case has to be applied — if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed.Despite the slight variation in the provisions with regard to discharge under the three pairs of Sections referred to above, the settled legal position is that the stage of framing of charge under either of these three situations, is a preliminary one and the test of "prima facie" case has to be applied — if the trial court is satisfied that a prima facie case is made out, charge has to be framed.Discharge in context of trial of a warrant caseIn the context of trial of a warrant case, instituted on a police report, the provisions for discharge are to be governed as per the terms of Section 239 which provide that a direction for discharge can be made only for reasons to be recorded by the court where it considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. It would, therefore, follow that as per the provisions under Section 239 what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not that a ground for convicting the accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offences alleged would justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of that offence, and it is only in a case where the Magistrate considers the charge to be groundless, he is to discharge the accused after recording his reasons for doing so. Section 239 envisages a careful and objective consideration of the question whether the charge against the accused is groundless or whether there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. What Section 239 prescribes is not, therefore, an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision to the advantage of the accused, and its breach is not permissible under the law. But if the Judge, upon considering the record, including the examination, if any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is "ground for presuming" that the accused has committed the offence triable under the chapter, he is required by Section 240 to frame in writing a charge against the accused. The order for the framing of the charge is also not an empty or routine formality. It is of a far-reaching nature, and it amounts to a decision that the accused is not entitled to discharge under Section 239, that there is, on the other hand, ground for presuming that he has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX and that he should be called upon to plead guilty to it and be convicted and sentenced on that plea, ...

Section 239 CrPC - Court Can Only Look Into Prima Facie Case & Decide Whether Prosecution Case Is Groundless: Supreme Court

Ashok KM

Tags