Under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Discharge Application is the remedy that is granted to the person who has been maliciously charged. If the allegations which have been made against him are false, this Code provides the provisions for filing a discharge application. If the evidence given before the Court is not sufficient to satisfy the offence and in the absence of any prima facie case against him, he is entitled to be discharged.
Section 227 of the Code defines that if the judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, upon hearing the submissions, of the prosecution and the accused and consideration of the record of the case along with the documents submitted therewith, he shall discharge the accused and record reasons also for doing so.
Mandatory cases where Sessions Judge is bound to discharge:
- Where he is precluded from proceeding because of a prior judgment of the High Court,
- Where the prosecution is barred by limitation,
- Where the evidence produced is not sufficient,
- Where there is no legal ground for proceeding against the accused, or 5.Where no sanction has been obtained.
The present section acts as a blessing in disguise that helps in the expeditious disposal of justice by helping the Court in focusing upon the major thing and efficiently dispose of the same.
That further, it is a section that can substantially help and carve out the major parties and dispose of it off a timely so as to ensure that justice is neither delayed nor misused.
Scope Of Section 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The purpose of framing a charge against an accused person is to acquaint him with the incriminating facts and circumstances proposed to be proved against him in the trial to follow. After enforcement of the new Code, known as Act No. 2 of 1974 can be discharged only by the Court of Sessions.
Section 227 statutorily binds the trial Judge to discharge an accused in cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions after making compliance with the below-mentioned four mandatory requirements;
- Consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith;
- Hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution on that behalf;
- Consideration that there is no ground for proceeding against the accused;
- Recording reasons for discharge.
A “grave suspicion about the commission of the crime by the accused” should exist before a charge can be framed. In the former, the Judge is not supposed to sift through the evidence. In the latter, a limited sifting of the evidence is permissible.
Therefore, when the phrase “prima facie evidence” is used, it is used for two different sets of examinations at two different stages of the criminal process. One has to realize that the trial progresses through different stages.
Hence, the appreciation of evidence has to be of different quality. While at the stage of cognizance it is mere “suspicion”, at the stage of framing of charge, it is “grave suspicion”, and at the end of the trial, it is a critical analysis and a meticulous examination of the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and the accused.
Therefore, the appreciation of the evidence at the stage of framing of charge is at the micro level; at the end of the trial, it is at the macro level. Hence, the mental level of appreciation changes at every stage of the criminal process; from a cursory appreciation to a critical level.
The law on the subject is now well settled that at Sections 227 and 228 stage the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging there from taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offense. The Court may for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case.
Therefore, at the stage of framing of charge, the Court has to consider the material to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offense or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.