Accused Cannot Rely on Documents Beyond Chargesheet to Seek Discharge: Supreme Court

In a significant clarification on the scope of discharge under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Supreme Court has held that an accused has no right to rely on documents outside the chargesheet or its accompanying material at the stage of framing of charges. The Court emphasized that only the report filed under Section 173 CrPC and the materials submitted with it can be considered for such purposes.

A bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti was ruling on an appeal filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging a 2021 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that upheld the discharge of accused persons in a case concerning alleged financial loss of over ₹21 crore to the government under the Minimum Support Price (MSP) scheme for cotton procurement.

The special court had discharged the accused in 2017, relying on certain correspondence between the CBI and the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) — specifically a letter dated January 8, 2007, from the CBI to the CCI and the latter’s reply dated January 31, 2007, to conclude that no actual loss had occurred.

Disapproving of this approach, the Top Court observed:

“The discharge has been ordered not by referring to any of the situations referred to in Section 239 of the CrPC, but by relying on the documents made available by the accused. The procedure followed by the trial court and as confirmed by the High Court is patently illegal, and contrary to binding precedent.”

The Court reiterated that the discharge process under Sections 227 and 239 CrPC is a limited scrutiny designed to weed out groundless prosecutions, not to entertain a defence on merits or to evaluate external documents furnished by the accused. Citing the statutory framework, the Court noted:

“Section 239 of the CrPC, which deals with the trial of warrant cases by a magistrate, confines the examination to the final report and documents sent with it under Section 173 of the CrPC.”

Referring to the precedent laid down in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979), the bench noted that while a magistrate must ensure that a prosecution is not frivolous, this discretion must be exercised strictly within the contours of the chargesheet and supporting evidence.

The Court explained the broader purpose of the discharge provision:

“The magistrate, at this stage, by exercising the jurisdiction within the parameters set out by Sections 227/239 of the CrPC, decides whether the narrative of the complainant warrants prosecution/trial or the accused is entitled to be discharged. The inner and outer limits of the discretion under these sections are no more res integra.”

It cautioned that a magistrate is not to act as a mere conduit for the prosecution nor conduct a “mini-trial” at the stage of discharge:

“Considering the importance of either discharging the accused or continuing the prosecution, the magistrate neither acts as a post office nor conducts a mini-trial of the report and the documents before it.”

The bench noted that the High Court’s casual remark that there was no material for cheating and forgery overlooked the allegations and accompanying evidence. It reiterated that courts cannot consider documents submitted by the defence to justify a discharge, stating:

“A path unavailable to the special court and the High Court is the consideration of material invited at the instance of the defence for ordering discharge.”

The case involved allegations of a criminal conspiracy and forgery to wrongfully enrich certain private parties and cause a loss of ₹21.19 crore to the CCI and farmers. The Court found that the trial court and the High Court had exceeded their jurisdiction by relying on materials not contemplated under Section 239 CrPC.

Setting aside the orders of discharge, the Supreme Court remanded the matter back to the special court, directing it to reconsider the plea for discharge strictly in accordance with Section 239 CrPC, and without being influenced by any observations made in the present judgment.

Case Title: State Represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthy & Others