Union of India v Prafulla Kumar Samal

• The Special Judge discharged the respondents, who were accused of corruption, under S.227 CrPC, finding no sufficient ground to proceed. The High Court upheld the discharge, and the Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court.

1. What is the scope of the Judge's power to discharge an accused under S.227 CrPC, and how much may he weigh the evidence at that stage?

• The Judge has power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding whether a prima facie case is made out. Where the material discloses grave suspicion that is not properly explained, he is justified in framing a charge. If two views are equally possible and the evidence gives rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion, he may discharge. The Judge is not a mere post office to frame charges at the behest of the prosecution, but he must not make a roving enquiry. On the facts, the discharge was upheld.

The words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" in S.227 CrPC require the Judge to apply his judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial is made out. The test of a prima facie case depends on the facts, but grave suspicion not properly explained justifies a charge, and some suspicion where two views are equally possible justifies discharge.