Seeking discharge against framing of charges is valuable right to accused: Supreme Court
SECTIONS
Last Updated: May 11, 2021, 03:17 PM IST
Share
Synopsis
The apex court was hearing an appeal filed by Uttar Pradesh resident Sanjay Kumar Rai challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court in a criminal revision petition against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sant Kabir Nagar, refusing to discharge him under Sections 504 (hurling abuses) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code.
The top court in its judgement said that the High Court has committed jurisdictional error by not entertaining the revision petition on merits and overlooking the fact that discharge is a valuable right provided to the accused.
NEW DELHI, May 11: Seeking ‘discharge’ against framing of charges in a criminal case is a valuable right provided to the accused under the law, the Supreme Court has said while asking courts to consider the case on merits.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice N V Ramana said it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office.
“The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case. “Likewise, the Court has sufficient discretion to order further investigation in appropriate cases, if need be,” said the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant and Aniruddha Bose.
Supreme Court said seeking discharge against framing of charges is a valuable right of accused
New Delhi:
Seeking discharge against framing of charges in a criminal case is a valuable right provided to the accused under the law, the Supreme Court has said while asking courts to consider the case on merits.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice NV Ramana said it is well settled that the trial court while considering the discharge application is not to act as a mere post office. The Court has to sift through the evidence in order to find out whether there are sufficient grounds to try the suspect. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, total effect of evidence and documents produced and the basic infirmities appearing in the case.