- The Supreme Court observed that a simple and necessary inquiry can be conducted while considering discharge plea to find out whether a prima facie case is made out.
- In the case of Kanchan Kumar vs State of Bihar, the discharge application filed by a person accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for having possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income) was dismissed by the Trial Court.
- The Trial Court refused to consider this objection on the ground that a roving inquiry is not permissible the stage of discharge. The Patna High Court dismissed the challenge against this order.
- In appeal, Senior Advocate Sunil Kumar, who appeared for the appellant- accused, contended that, the basic objection relating to the calculation and wrongful inclusion of certain items was sufficient for the Trial Court to discharge the accused.
- AoR Abhinav Mukerji, for the respondent contended that the courts could not have conducted a roving inquiry while adjudicating an application.
- The bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed the threshold of scrutiny required to adjudicate an application under Section 227 Cr.P.C. is to consider the broad probabilities of the case and the total effect of the material on record, including examination of any infirmities appearing in the case, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha observed.
Section 227 of Cr.P.C
If upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.