 Yes, we are from everyone and as we go live, we are first of all grateful to Justice Biran Kumar, who despite the fact that he fell down yesterday, but his passion to take classes forward shows that when the session was for charge and discharge, he said that since I have been discharged yesterday I will take the session on the discharge itself today. I will wait until the providential discharge. I will request Mr. S.K. Premraj who gives his insights over the topic in his own usual style in different way and we have shared the questions and Justice Ramkumar had asked us to keep the bear act, kindly keep the bear act to understand these questions the way Justice Ramkumar takes forward. What do you bring? Thank you because again today also I have been taken by surprise. Anyway, firstly with regard to this topic under the CRPC and application seeking to discharge, it is treated as a penesia or one of the most effective remedies because apart from section 482, this is the most effective remedy which any accused is having. If he feels that he was maliciously charged by the investigating agency and the allegations as against a particular person who is so charged appears to be false or concocted, then the CRPC provides for filing a discharge application. And in the evidence given before the court, it is not sufficient to satisfy the ingredients of the offense and in the absence of a primophysic case as against an offender, then such person automatically is entitled to be discharged. Now as we know, we have four types of trial procedures which are provided by the court, which are summary trials, you have the summons trial, you have the warrant trial and you have the sessions trial. Now yet another two major classifications come in the warrant trial. One is the cases which are instituted on the basis of the police support and the second one are the cases which are instituted otherwise than on police support, which are so basically complete actually. And we know that a judge or a magistrate can never be assumed to be a mere post office for the purpose of framing a charge because he cannot do so at the instructions of the prosecuting agency. An application of judicial mind to the facts of that particular case that is quintessential to find out or to determine whether a primophysic case has been made out by the prosecution to send the accused for trial. And to determine such a particular fact, we know it is not mandatory to dive into the pros and cons of the whole matter by the courts. Now how to decide whether there is a sufficient drug, how to decide whether there is a primophysic case etc. are matters which can be deliberated at great length. Yet another facet which needs deliberation is a prime question whether any material which is produced by an accused that can be looked into by the court and the stage of discharge. I think that this is a question also for today's topic and we have decisions right from Satish Mehra which is a celebrated decision in this particular field. And another question, a very interesting question also assumes significance whether there can be discharge in someone's case because we know section 251 is applicable provision. We don't have such a provision like section 227 or 239 in a summons slide but still the question is whether there can be discharge in a summons case. Now today we are being addressed on this particular topic by none other than Justice Jamkumar who will take us through the nuances on this subject. And as you all know Justice Jamkumar, he is a treasured house of knowledge in every branch of law. And to hear his lecture we know because he is having his own inimitable style of asking a question and answering that question based on the Supreme Court judgments law coupled with logic. So I need not make much intro about Justice Jamkumar because every one of you know him and for me he is my hero judge. Now over to you sir without standing in the way of you and the party. Thank you Mr. Prem and thank you Mr. Vigas. Good evening friends, discharging the accused and framing a charge against him. Court has a very responsible duty while deciding to discharge the accused for to frame a charge against him. The expression charge has not been defined with the necessary precision under the CRPC. All that section to be CRPC says that charge includes any head of charge when the charge contains more head than one. That is not at all a helpful definition. Therefore any mistake, error or omission at this stage can bring about a failure of justice. There is a practice among certain judges to make verbatim reproduction of the police charge. I have been deprecating that while addressing judicial officers in the judicial academies. They simply copied on the police charge, which is a very bad practice. You have the commentaries, the great commentaries. After every section in the individual court, there is a draft charge given. You can very well copy that draft charge, make use of that draft charge and frame the court charge. Instead of simply blindly copying the police charge. A judge has to independently apply his mind and frame charge in accordance with chapter 17 of CRPC. After reading the court charge, the court charge is invariably read in the language of the court. Which may be English, which may be local, vernacular or ordinarily it is in English, in South Indian courts it is in English. But then the accused may not be knowing English. Therefore, after reading the court charge, it has to be read over and explained to the accused in the language known to the accused. Then only you can say that you have framed the charge effectively as against the accused. Then only you can effectively take the plea from the accused, whether he pleads guilty or not. Without understanding what the court charge is, if he pleads guilty, that will be a travesty of justice. Now, police charge it to the effect that offense has not been made out in investigation, is not binding on the court, which has to make an independent examination of the materials. Because the police, the conclusion of the investigating officer is not to tell binding on the magistrate or the session court because he can go wrong. In the case of a court also, the police officer also can go wrong. There might be material on which cognizance could be taken. Therefore, the police report to the effect that there is no case made out. We call it a rougher report. It is not binding on the court. For a citation on that, you make a note. Now, before we go to the questions, we have only three questions for today. We go into the meat of the matter only in the subsequent series of lectures. Now, before going to the three questions, let us have a discussion on the chart. I have given you two charts, one chart on a discharge and the other on framing charge. Can you please screen share that? He is sharing it. Now, I am going to join. Okay. Because framing of charge, as rightly mentioned by Mr. Premraj, the court frames charge only in warrant trial and session trial. There is no framing of charge in summon trial or summary trial. Because there is a substance of accusation being read out to the accused. There is no framing of charge. Therefore, there is no discharge. Whereas in a warrant trial or session trial, there is a framing of charge. And since there is a framing of charge, there can also be a discharge. In fact, you won't find a specific provision in the CRPD entitling the accused to file a petition for discharge. But then court has got the power to discharge the accused. Because if there is no sufficient material before the court, entitling the court to proceed to the further stage of the case, then it will be a travesty of justice. It will be injustice to ask the accused to undergo the trauma of a trial, to undergo the ordeal of a trial. That is why court is given the power to discharge so that the case can be prematurely terminated before it proceeds further to the chagrin of the accused. Now, please take the chart on discharge. Discharge in warrant trial is chapter 19. And in session trial, it is chapter 18. In warrant trial, in chapter 19, as it was observed, like I said, the case can be in a warrant trial, the case can be instituted either on a police report or otherwise than on a police report. Otherwise, than on a police report is usually in the form of a private complaint, and defined under section 2D. And police report section 239. Discharge the accused if the case against him is groundless. That is the only criteria. The magistrate can discharge the accused if the materials considered by the magistrate, the charge against the accused is groundless. See, groundless. The charge should be groundless. Then the magistrate can discharge. Then in the case of a police charge, instituted otherwise than on a police report. So we have shared it. Yes, I have seen that. Intituted otherwise than on a police report. In fact, cases into warrant case before a magistrate, instituted on a police report is part A of chapter 17, chapter 19 CRP. Whereas the warrant trial cases instituted otherwise than on a police report, we will find it in part B of chapter 19. In part B, the criteria is different. Section 245.2 as per section 245.2 is a magistrate after taking all evidence, all prosecution evidence, finds that the charge against the accused is groundless. There also the criteria is groundless. He can discharge the accused. But if after taking the entire evidence, this 245.2 is at any stage. 245.2 is at any stage. See, once the accused appears in a private complaint warrant trial, the magistrate has to call upon the prosecution to examine all the witnesses. That is the requirement under section 244 CRP. And the prosecution will have to examine all the witnesses. Even before the conclusion of the examination of all the witnesses, at any stage, if the magistrate finds that the charge is groundless, he can discharge the accused under section 245.2. But if the magistrate does not discharge the accused in the intervening stage, even in the intervening stage, but examines all the prosecution witnesses. Then after the examination of all the witnesses, if after taking all evidence under section 244 CRP, the no case against the accused is made out, which if unrebutted would warrant a conviction. Even without rebuttal, even without a rebuttal evidence by the on the front side of the accused, if on the face of the evidence, on the face of the record, there is a case made out and then which will warrant a conviction, then the magistrate can frame a charge. This is the procedure, this provision for framing charge in a case instituted on a police report or instituted otherwise than on a police report. Then in the case of session trial, how to discharge? Section 227, discharge if the judge considers, after committal the case comes before the session judge, after considering the entire material before the court. If the session judge considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further against the accused, he can discharge the accused. So that the parameter, the main parameter for discharging is that the want of sufficient ground. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding further in the matter, the magistrate or the session judge can discharge the accused. It is the differently put in the case of warrant trial by saying that the charge against the accused is groundless. Groundless means there is no sufficient ground. There is no sufficient ground for proceeding further. Therefore the magistrate may say there is no, the charge against the accused is groundless. Session judge may say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. These are the two parameters for discharging the accused. Now every case should not result in discharge because there might be materials showing the complexity of the accused. Therefore then comes the next stage. If the judge doesn't, the magistrate or the judge doesn't discharge the accused, then it has to frame charge. What are all the criteria? In warrant trial, instituted on a police report part A of chapter 19, section 240 clause 1. And warrant trial, instituted otherwise than on a police report, section 240 is the one. The criterion is the same. Criteria for framing charge is the same. If there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence. But in session trial, this is, there also the, the yardstick is the same, 228, section 228 1 all B, section 228 1 B, frame charge if there is ground for presuming that the acute has committed an offense, which is exclusively tribal by court of session. If the offense is exclusively tribal by court of session, how will you find out? You go to first schedule CRPC, first schedule, they all the offenses under Indian penal code are enumerated one by one. Last column of first schedule shows the case as we tried by which court. If any offense is tribal by a court of session, you can say that that offense is exclusively tribal by a court of session. Otherwise the yardstick usually applied is the offense is tribal for with imprisonment we punishable with imprisonment beyond seven years, then it is exclusively tribal by a court of session. If it is a law other than the Indian penal code, in Indian penal code you have definite provision in the first schedule. If it is some other law, you go to part two of first schedule and find out whether what is the punishment prescribed. The punishment contains imprisonment and if it is beyond seven years, you can straight away conclude that it is an offense tribal exclusively by a court of session. Then if the offense, the session judge after perusing the record, find that the offense is exclusively tribal by a court of session, he shall frame a charge that is 228, 1B. But there can be situations where the from the record, the session judge might be inclined to hold that the offenses are not exclusively tribal by a court of session. The precious time of the session court need not be wasted by trying both offenses because they can be very conveniently tried by a magistrate. See, you do it in magistrate or magistrate of the first class. Therefore, in such a case, because supposing the offense alleged it is 307, but after perusing the materials, the session judge is of the opinion that 307 is not at all made up. But at best what is made out is only section 326 IPC. Then it is not an offense exclusively tribal by court of session. Then the precious time of the session judge need not be wasted by trying an offense under the section 326. The session judge can under section 228, 1A, frame charge and transfer the case either to the chief judicial magistrate considered or to the magistrate of the first class for trial. Therefore, the session judge need not, need not. But that doesn't mean that session judge has no jurisdiction to try an offense which is not exclusively tribal by a court of session. Session judge can try. But the precious time of the session, session judges may be having lot of work. So the precious time need not be wasted for such cases. So they can be conveniently made over to the chief judicial magistrate or the magistrate of the first class. So we have a rough idea about the procedure for discharge and the procedure for framing charge. And then we come to the three questions. Can anybody read question number one? So question number one, during the preliminary hearing under section 227 CRPC in a session trial, the session judge while considering the record of the case has to hear the submissions of the accused and the prosecution also. During such hearing is not the accused entitled to claim discharge by producing evidence to show that the prosecution version is false. If you read the provision section 227, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the document submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this because the judge you consider that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reason for doing so is the wording of section 227. So if after hearing the submission to the accused and the prosecution on the record of the case, therefore interpreting those words, as mentioned by Mr. Premraj, in Satish Mehra versus Delhi administration, 1996 volume 9, SCC 766, a two judge bench of the Supreme Court held that if after hearing the submissions of the accused means accused, it is not an empty formality. On the record of the case accused also is entitled to be heard, therefore they at that stage accused can disprove the prosecution evidence by adusing documents, by producing documents and say that this evidence is not, I can falsify, I can disprove this evidence with this document. So the hearing the submission of the accused can include also adusing evidence by the accused, that was the view taken by Supreme Court. But it all depends on the Supreme Court strictly interpreting section 227, overhauling this decision in Satya Vorisa versus Devendra Nath Paddy, Satya Vorisa versus Devendra Nath Paddy, AIR 2005 Supreme Court, 359, three judges, AIR 2005 Supreme Court, 359, three judges speaking through Justice Baikya Sabarwal, there they see the wording of section 227, if upon consideration of the record of the case and the document submitted therewith, what is the record of the case? Session judge cannot have any other record other than the record submitted by the prosecution as as produced before the session court pursuant to an order of committal by the magistrate. See session judge as a court of original jurisdiction cannot take cognizance of an offense. He can take cognizance of an offense as a court of original jurisdiction only upon a committal of the case by the magistrate under section 193 CRPC. Therefore session judge will get the case only in a golden platter by pursuant to a committal by the magistrate committal magistrate. Therefore the records are already there. What are the records in a police case or complaint case? The records produced by the complainant. The complainant or the police or police charging officer, investigating officer alone will produce a record. They are the record produced before the session judge consignant on a committal. Therefore interpreting these words, the larger bench held that records of the case, record of the case can only be record produced or submitted before the session judge consignant on a committal. Therefore at that stage, hearing the submission to the accused mean the accused can make a submission on those records. Accuses can make a submission on those records. He cannot create records. He cannot adduce evidence. He cannot produce documents to say that this particular document cannot be believed. It can be, I can easily disprove that by producing evidence. No, his stage for evidence arises only when he is called upon to adduce evidence at that stage only. Therefore, at the stage of framing charge, the we have to take the document as a prosecution record as such. That is the view taken in. They've been there not for the for this case. A year 2005 to bring out three fine and three judges being through judges. Why K. Aberwald, Suburwal. There are other rulings also, uh, uh, uh, approving the same view, uh, following the same view that is 2008. Volume 10 SCC 109 Bharat Parikh versus CBI 2008 volume 10 SCC 109. Again, Ajay Kumar Parmar Ajay Kumar Parmar versus state of Rajasthan. 2012 volume 12 SCC 406 2012 volume 12 SCC 406 corresponding to AIR 2013 Supreme Court, six double three AIR 2013 Supreme Court, six double three. And recently in Shiva Lingamurthy ME versus CBI Bengaluru Shiva Lingamurthy ME versus CBI Bengaluru to AIR 2020 Supreme Court, 331 AIR 2020 Supreme Court, 331. The defense of the accused is not to be looked into at that stage in the accused six in itself, in the accused six in itself, he cannot use different evidence to improvise or to falsify or to disprove the prosecution records. Again, I'll give you a earlier decision. Shiva Lingamurthy is the latest. All right. Then we pass on to question number two. So the next question relates to the use of different phrasology. Yes. Why is it that for discharging and accused under section 227 CRPC that is in a session trial and section 239 CRPC in a warrant trial on a police report and section 245 CRPC in a warrant trial otherwise than on a police report. Different phrasology is used. See, in a session trial, the case, as I told you, the case cannot straight away come before a court of session. If you want, if you, if you allege that, if a person alleges that a session offense, an offense exclusively tribaled by a court of session, for example, murder, murder has been committed. He cannot straight away approach the session court either with a private complaint, a police report, of course, before the police officer. He, the session court, he cannot take cognizance of an offense as a court of original jurisdiction unless the case is committed to the session court before by the magistrate consul. So either in the way, in the form of a police report, or in the form of a private complaint, the case can originate only before the magistrate consul, the case instituted on a police report or a case instituted on a private complaint can originate only before a magistrate, even in, even in a case where the offense is exclusively tribaled by a court of session, for example, murder case, a murder case where the agreeable party cannot straight away prefer a private complaint before the court of session, he had to be prefer a private complaint either before the magistrate or go to the, or go to the consul's police station and, and give information under section 154 CRP. Therefore, that is, and when the, whether in a police report or in a private complaint, the magistrate, after, after evaluation of the material, finds that the case is exclusively tribaled by a court of session and commits the case to the court of session. The session court receives the records, which may be, which may, might have originated on a police report or might have originated on a private complaint. So there, what is before the session court is only the records, whether in a police report or private complaint. But in the case of a magistrate, magistrate, the, the CRPC contains different provisions. I have already told you chapter 19 part A pertains to institution of warrant trial on a police report and part B of the chapter, institution of warrant, warrant case on a, otherwise than on a police report. Therefore, two, two separate channels are there for a magistrate to take cognizance of the offense. That is why the two different phraseology, that is why in 227, when the session judge is conducting the preliminary hearing, after hearing the submission, the upon consideration of the records of the case, their records be include a police report record or a private complaint record. But in the case of magistrate warrant trial 239, if upon 239 says, if upon considering the police report and the documents, see upon comes, because it is a warrant trial on a police report, then, then to 45, if upon taking all evidence referred to in section 244, in the case of a private complaint warrant trial, the as in when the acute appears, the magistrate will have to call upon the prosecution, the provider, the complainant to produce all his evidence, all his witnesses will have to be examined. That is why in a private complaint warrant trial, the magistrate will have to examine all the prosecution witnesses 244. Therefore, in 244, you don't find the police report, you don't find the records. The records will be, will, will form before the magistrate as in when the, the witnesses for the prosecution are being examined under section 244 CRP. So, supposing it is a private complaint alleging offenses exclusively tribal by a court of session. Supposing it is a private come to murder case, trial complaint is because the complainant or the victim, the relative of the victim do not have faith in the police or maybe for the police officers have been hand in glove with the culprits. Therefore, they don't believe in the police. They straight away come to the court. They cannot approve the session court. They can only approve the magistrate. And if a private complaint is filed by virtue of the proviso to section 202 section clause to section 202, the magistrate will have to examine all the prosecution witnesses, the complainants, witnesses because to, to not to enquiry is a, is a mandatory in that, in a case where the offense allegories exclusively tribal by a court of session. Why? Why? Because unlike in the case of a police report, when the case comes up for trial, the defense will be deprived of the benefit of any previous statements of the witnesses. In the case of a police report, there are 161 statements recorded by police officer during interrogation, during investigation, but in a private complaint, you don't have any previous statements, previous statements of all the witnesses produced by the complainant. Therefore, the, the accused will be at the Z1 dates during trial. That is why this, the framers of the court have guardedly insisted that the magistrate should examine under section 202 CRPD all the prosecution witnesses produced by the complainant so that when the case comes up for trial before a section court pursuant to a committer under section 209 CRPD, the accused will have all the statements of the witnesses to be examined during trial. So that with reference to those statements, we can effectively cross examine them. Otherwise, he will be at a, at a Z1 date. That is why this, these provisions are made. So that's why different phrase theology have been used in these three sections. Yes, we now pass on to question number three. Have I not understood? Am I, am I not clear? No, sir, I'm asking Prem to read the question. I was not doing that. Question number three, right? Yeah. You have that? I can read it. What are the criteria laid down by the courts for discharging the accused or framing a charge against the accused? This is a situation where you will find a lot of confusion. In fact, this CRPC only says sufficient ground for proceeding or the charge against the accused is groundless. Submitted ground for proceeding is the only yardstick laid down by CRPC. But our courts have laid down so many criteria, but I, I will, I will welcome that. But I have been telling all the judicial officers and all my lawyer friend that in fact, in fact, this, this, you have to take advantage of this confusion because in an appropriate case, if you, the court wants to acquit or discharge an accused, he can make use of those decisions. Fortunately, for, fortunately or unfortunately, we have conflicting decisions of the apex court itself on all these aspects. Therefore, if you want to discharge an accused, you have got a ready made judgment of the Supreme Court. If you want to frame discharge, then also you have got ready made judgments of the Supreme Court. So that, that way conflicting decisions by the apex court is a boom. We say, it's a welcome thing. I would, I have been telling all the judicial officers, judges and lawyer friends. So in a case where you feel that if you are a different lawyer, you feel that you have got a good case for discharge to lie on these rulings. And the judge also, if he feels that they say good case for discharge to lie on these rulings. But if the judge or the lawyer feels that or the prosecutor feels that say good case for framing charge to lie on these rulings, so that appropriate rulings can be made use of appropriately, either by the different lawyer, the court or the public prosecutor. Now, first line of decisions is that charge can be framed if there is prima facie case made out to proceed against the accused. Prima facie case, that is the yardstick laid down by the Supreme Court. CRPC doesn't say prima facie case. It only says sufficient ground for proceeding. But this is one criteria, one criterion laid down by the Supreme Court. I'll give you the citation. Union of India versus Prafila Kumar Samal. A.R. 1979 Supreme Court, 3-6. A.R. 1979 Supreme Court, 3-6. Again, RS Naik versus A.R. Antulay. RS Naik versus A.R. Antulay. A.R. 1986 Supreme Court, 2-0-4-5. A.R. 1986 Supreme Court, 2-0-4-5. That is all on prima facie case. Then again, state of Himachal Pradesh versus Krishanlal Pradhan. A.R. 1987 Supreme Court, 773. A.R. 1987 Supreme Court, 773. And again, state of Delhi versus Gyan Devi. State of Delhi versus Gyan Devi. A.R. 2001 Supreme Court, 4-0. Any number of rulings on this point? Lately, Nagaraj KM versus state of Kerala. That is, I'm sorry, that's in Kerala. Before that, I'll give you the Supreme Court. Mauvin Gorina versus state of Goa. A.R. 2018 Supreme Court, 749. A.R. 2018 Supreme Court, 749. So this is one criterion. If there's a prima facie case made out by the prosecution for proceeding against the accused, court can frame the charge. Or if no prima facie case has been made out, court can discharge the accused. Prima facie case is one criterion. Then we go to the second criterion, judicial is a tilt. Charge can be framed only if there is grave or strong suspicion that the accused had committed the offence. Charge can be framed only if there is grave or strong suspicion that the accused has committed offence. If after perusing, after evaluating the material, the court finds that there is a grave or strong suspicion that the accused has committed the offence, charge can be framed. The citations are again, Union of Indiversals of Prafila Kumar A.R. 1979 Supreme Court, 3-6-6. Then Rumi Dhar versus state of West Bengal. A.R. 2009 Supreme Court, 2-195. 2009 Supreme Court, 2-195. Then P Vijayn versus state of Kerala. P Vijayn versus state of Kerala. 2010 Volume 2 ACC, 398. That's the case which went from the state High Court of Kerala, where the judgment was delivered by this humble self. Then comes Shiva Lingamurthy, M.E. versus E.B.I. Bengaluru. A.R. 2020 Supreme Court, 3-3-1. That is again strong suspicion or grave suspicion. Only if there is a grave suspicion or strong suspicion that charge can be framed. If there is no grave suspicion or strong suspicion, charge cannot be framed. This charge is accused. Then we come to the third criteria. Court will be justified in discharging the accused if the evidence produced gives rise to some suspicion or a mere suspicion. If the evidence produced gives rise to some suspicion or a mere suspicion, no grave suspicion or strong suspicion. Please, some suspicion. Then you cannot frame charge. The court cannot frame charge, but discharging accused. Dilwar Babu Kurani versus state of Maharashtra. A.R. 2002 Supreme Court, 5-6-4. A.R. 2002 Supreme Court, 5-6-4. Yogesh Elias Sachin Jagdish Jyoti versus state of Maharashtra. A.R. 2008 Supreme Court, 2-991. A.R. 2008 Supreme Court, 2-991. Again, Omkarnath Mishra versus state N.C.T. of Delhi. 2008 Volume 2, S.E.C. 5-6-1. It's only, these are all cases where there's only some suspicion or mere suspicion. On mere suspicion, you cannot frame charge. You have to discharging accused. The court can, court has to discharging accused. Then again, Sanghi brothers indoor, private limited versus Sanjay Chaudhary. A.R. 2009 Supreme Court, page 9. A.R. 2009 Supreme Court, page 9. Again, P.V.J.N versus state of Kerala. 2010 Supreme Court, page 9. Again, P.V.J.N 2010, 2-SEC 398. 2010, Volume 2, S.E.C. 398. If there is only mere suspicion, you can't frame charge. Then fourth criteria. At this, at this stage, at this stage of framing charge or discharging at this stage of framing charge or discharging, court cannot conduct a mini trial. There cannot be a miniature trial conducted at the virtually at the stage of discharging or framing charge. There cannot be a mini trial conducted. State of Orissa versus Devendra Paddy. A.R. 2005 Supreme Court, page 9. Three judges. We wear the Supreme Court overruling Padish Meghra. Held that, the records of the case they looked can be looked into. There the Supreme Court said that at the stage of framing charge or discharging, court cannot conduct a mini trial. Trial comes only thereafter. After framing charge and after the accused, please non-guilty. Then only trial starts. So, at that stage, at the stage of framing charge or discharging, you cannot virtually conduct a mini trial. Then again, A.R. 2009 Supreme Court, page 9. Seven Six, Hindu Jain versus Devendra Paddy. A.R. 2009 Supreme Court, page 9. Seven Six. Now, we pass on to the fifth criterion. Even if you please remember, the CRPT only uses the expression sufficient ground for position. This has been unnecessarily structured further, but anyway, it can be to the benefit of the lawyers and the judges. In appropriate case, I have been telling the judges, if you feel honestly, in at both good faith, if you feel that the case is to be discharged, you lie on these decisions. If you honestly feel that the case, charge has to be framed, you lie on these set of decisions. So, that way it is a blessing in disguise. The fifth criterion is, even if the court thinks that the accused might have committed the offence, charge can be framed. See, might have, we have traveled along from strong suspicion. If the accused might have committed the offence, charge can be framed. See this criterion. In appropriate case, the court can frame charge, saying that accused might have committed the offence. A year nineteen, state of Maharashtra versus Somnath Tapa. State of Maharashtra versus Somnath Tapa. A year nineteen, ninety-six, Supreme Court, seventeen, forty-four. Three judges, mind you, seventeen, forty-four. Then sixth criterion. The possibility as against certainty is sufficient for framing charge. The possibility is sufficient as against certainty. Certainty means it for conviction. Possibility is enough for framing charge. Somnath Chakravarthy versus state through CBI. A year two thousand seven, Supreme Court, two one four nine. A year two thousand seven, Supreme Court, two one four nine. Again, Bharat Barik versus CBI. A year two thousand nine, I'm sorry, at two thousand eight, volume ten, SCC one zero nine. In fact, two thousand A year two thousand nine, Supreme Court, supplementary. Five to three. Five to three. See, one reading this, you get confound, confusion confounded. But then you can take advantage of that. Then comes the seventh criterion. At the time of framing charge, the materials produced by the prosecution have to be accepted as true. The probative value of those materials cannot be gone into. That is why in Devendra's party, Supreme Court said, accused cannot lead evidence to show that this evidence produced by the prosecution is false. I can disprove that, no. Therefore, the probative value of the materials produced by the prosecution cannot be gone into by the court at that stage. The citations are Somnath Chakravarthy versus CBI. A year two thousand seven, Supreme Court, two one four nine. Again, Omkar Nath Misra versus state in city of Delhi. A year two thousand eight, volume two, a CC five six one. In fact, in one decision of 2019, Supreme Court says, it is erodious to discharge accused on the ground of inconsistent medical reports. I fail to understand why. It is erodious to discharge accused on the ground of inconsistent medical reports. If the prosecution record itself shows inconsistent medical reports, the accused can certainly take advantage of the inconsistent medical reports. And the inconsistency can be certainly taken advantage of. But in US, Supreme Court has held so. Bihari Lal versus state of Rajasthan. A year 2019 Supreme Court, one double nine five, one double nine five. A year 2019 Supreme Court, one double nine five. Eighth criterion, it is immaterial whether the evidence produced by the prosecution is direct or circumstantial. The the law does not require that the prosecution should invariably use direct evidence alone. There can be cases where no direct evidence will be available. Therefore, the evidence of the materials produced by the prosecution can be either direct or circumstantial. A year 2004 Supreme Court, three nine six seven. State of Andhra Pradesh versus Gulkonda Kintiga Swami. A year 2004 Supreme Court, three nine six seven. Then the the the retraction of the earlier position that the primitive value cannot be gone into. Analysis of all the materials by deciding the pros and cons. Reliability or acceptability of those materials not to be undertaken by the court at that stage. That is pros and cons should not be gone into. Reliability, acceptability. They have to be taken as true. The prosecution records have to be taken as true at that stage. Ramakrishna versus State of Bihar. A year 2000 Supreme Court triple three zero. A year 2000 Supreme Court triple three zero. Sajjan Kumar versus CBI. 2010 volume nine SCC 368. 10th criteria. Subvision beyond for proceeding. We are on Subvision beyond for proceeding. The order should not be one virtually passing an order of acquittal in the garb of discharge. You evaluate the entire material and virtually pass an order of acquittal instead of an order of discharge. A detailed judgment not contemplated at the stage of framing charges and granting a discharge. It's a you only primacy evaluation of the material. You cannot pass a long detailed judgment as if it is an acquittal. A acquittal comes only after trial. CBI versus Mukesh Pravin Chandra Shroff 2009 volume 16 SCC 429 2009 volume 16 SCC 429. 11th criteria. At the stage of framing charge the court is concerned only with the question as to whether prime office there appears the existence of the material or not the existence of any material or not. Not the sufficiency of the material sufficiency of the material whether the materials produced are sufficient enough not not the concern of the court whether there are materials in support of the constitutional allegation. Prakash Singh Badal versus state of Punjab AR 2007 Supreme Court 1274 AR 2007 Supreme Court 1274 but I personally feel that sufficiency also will have to be gone into otherwise supposing the material produced are not sufficient to frame charge. How can you say that charge cannot be because they have to be discharged. Then the 12th criteria while considering a discharge application the court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not. There is a whether there is a case for trial has been made out. Vikram Johar versus state of UP AR 2019 Supreme Court 2109 AR 2019 Supreme Court 2109 then 13th criterion if the evidence which the public prosecutor proposes to adieu to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross examination or in rebuttal evidence cannot show that the accused committed the offense then there will be there will not be sufficient ground for proceeding. Actually this is a criterion for trial complaint warrant trial not for session trial V. Vijayan versus state of Kerala that is a decision which I said which came from which which was rendered by me and taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court that was that famous case of Naxalite Varghese who might say session trial 227 was the section to be considered anyway the the criterion applied is that of the magistrate in a warrant trial private complaint. 2010 2 SCC 398 again it was reiterated in Shivalingam Murthy ME versus CBI Bengaluru AR 2020 Supreme Court 331 AR 2020 Supreme Court 331 so these are the various criteria for framing charges or discharging thank you. I suppose that you are in utter confusion but then all of all these decisions can be pressed into service to your advantage depending on the facts facts of each case and for judicial offices I used to tell them make use of these conflicting decisions if you want to discharge if you want to frame charge but only thing is you have to act in utmost good faith in utmost good faith you have to proceed with the likewise the counsel also whether prosecutor or defense counsel if you are sure that the case for discharge please rely on these rulings might might have committed is sufficient for framing charges how can that criteria be applied I don't know if strong suspicion is required for framing charges how can you say that if the evidence is only might have committed the sufficient for framing charges with that we conclude the today's preliminary hearing on the how to when to frame charge and when to discharge the subsequent sessions we go to the to the chapter 27 chapter 17 CRPC the various sections starting from section 211 to the two other sections in the application of each and every section in chapter 17 can be gone into this is by Sundaraj Rajan on the YouTube whether revision filed against the dismissal of discharge would become infrastructure if the charge is framed during the dependency of the revision I didn't get you I didn't get you good whether whether revision filed against dismissal of discharge would become an infrastructure if charges framed during the dependency of the revision no once there's a discharge how can there be charge if I'm not dismissed he would have probably meant to say that when he want to moved an application for dismissal of this for the discharge that application was dismissed then he took it in the revision and ultimately but meanwhile the charges have been framed he says no that will not become see if your discharge between has been dismissed not by the trial code but all by the trial code and if your challenge that and bending the revision the charge has been framed and if ultimately the revision is allowed then you are entitled to discharge see if the superior code session code or the high code allows the your discharge petition then just because the charge has been framed by the trial code subsequent to the dismissal of the recharge petition that will not become make the solution infrastructure is something like a civil law supposing there is a preliminary degree path for partition and if that is challenging in a before the high code pending there's no stay pending the the appeal a final degree is passed and once they give the accused high code were to allow the appeal then the final degree pass up thereafter will fall to the ground that is what the supreme would say in a year 1967 supreme code I don't remember the page number probably Prem Raj may be able to help us 67 supreme code there's a ruling that is the final degree if the appeal against the preliminary degree is allowed then if any prime final degree has been subsequently passed by the trial code that will also fall to the ground the it will not make the appeal infractures yes sir this is by Vijaya he says to all these citations and judgments cited by you applicable to SC and ST cases as well yes ST and ST cases the trial procedure is session trial SCST atrocities act 1989 schedule course and schedule tribes prevention of atrocities act 1989 procedure for trial is session procedure 227 and 228 sections 227 and 228 are the sections which are applicable but in in PC act in prevention of corruption act even though the presiding that is a session judge the procedure for trial is warrant trial this is by SM Kazar at which stage discharge petition could be filed discharge petition discharge petition as soon as the accused appears in response to the duties in response to summons when he appears before the court he will be supplied with the prosecution record if it is a police charge case section 207 will be complied with if it is a private complaint case section 208 will be complied with and once he is given the prosecution record then he can plead for a discharge saying that please record do not make out any case for proceeding further please discharge me that is the stage after appearance and after he is given the records prosecution record do committal proceedings standard bar with the as a bar for discharge why why discharge comes only thereafter only after committal the case comes up before the session court then only the preliminary hearing is conducted under section 227 CRPC during the preliminary hearing after committal that the the question of discharge or framing charge will arise committal and discharge charge as well in the relations FIR was registered in the section 325 341 506 but CCTV footage proves that no stick was used to beat the complainant and also wrongful restraining the complainant the last question the last question if CCTV footage shows what does not show that the stick has been used to be to beat the complainant and also wrong there was no wrongful restraint the complainant pushed the accused first and then accused pushed him and he fell down as a cause of action can the accused file a discharge application in these circumstances I don't I don't think because if if a lesser offense is made out then then that may be a fit case where the session court may may be able to apply section 228 1A section 228 1A saying that this is not a case exclusively tribal by court of session this is only a lesser offense made out tribal by a marriage rate therefore I am framing jar and transferring the case to the marriage rate for crime you can't plead for a discharge of course this technically it will amount to a discharge if the session's offense of the offense exclusively tribal by court of this in lightly the charge sheet was filed without forensic report in a case under section 302 37201 212 read with section 34 of IPC can this be a ground for the discharge no no the court can certainly call for the report report and it is not even a ground for not taking cognizance even for taking cognizance there is sufficient material on which the court can take cognizance just because the police report is deficient in certain aspects that you can't say that it is an incomplete report incomplete charge sheet it is a complete charge sheet as far as the court is concerned for the purpose of taking cognizance and for even for framing charge only thing is before framing charge the court should have all the record before it therefore the court can because the report may be lying in the committal court the report might have been called for by the committal magistrate and it may be lying in the record of the committal court it might have been omitted to be sent to the sectional court sectional court can certainly call for the report from the committal magistrate whether the discharge petition not maintainable when there is a case for framing charge when there is a case for framing charge the discharge petition is not maintained Rao so thank you we have taken all the questions I will ask Mr Rao to propose a vote of thanks yes today the questions were too less unusual like in the normal webinars so everybody didn't even get the question questions to be shared yeah over to you Mr Rao can you unmute yourself thanks thanks because as usual Ram Kumar sir the bubbly spirit in which you take these sessions enthuses every person to listen to you I wouldn't say with 100 percent I think 500 percent concentration because they don't want to miss even a comma of what you say and believe you me what you say becomes the gospel truth for most of us when we take down notes or or read the citations and come to the conclusion of how you have arrived at a conclusion the ease with which we can do that is is really amazing and this can only come from out of experience and the enthusiasm to teach and we really thank you and because and many other people who get you onto platforms where we can hear you and listen to you and understand and assimilate whatever you're saying I thank because once again for inviting you and I thank you for your excellent session today thank you thank you sir since Mr. Sham has also joined I will ask him just to chip in a few thoughts I was here throughout only thing is that was muted I'm glad that sir in spite of his health issues I was able to complete today's session and that too very beautifully small but sweet wonderful presentations thank you thank you thank you sir and thank you everyone thank you Mr. Prem Mr. Sham Mr. Rao who chipped in the right inputs at the right time and day after tomorrow we will be having session on WTO and developing countries by Professor Tia Subramaniam and the assistant professor Professor Shivani who's taken act with us at 4.30 day after tomorrow thank you everyone stay safe stay blessed we will post the next session of Mr. Ramakumar on the what's social media after taking after Dr. Kishan D go ahead thank you yes thank you thank you sir thank you sir thank you sir