The Supreme Court has ruled that a trial court cannot act as a mere post office for the prosecuting agency and a judge must independently apply his mind to examine whether a prima facie criminal case exists or the accused has to be “discharged” to “save him from avoidable harassment and expenditure”.

Section 227 of the CrPC (250 of the new BNSS) states: “If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution on this behalf, the judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing.”

The apex court also slammed the CBI for registering a criminal case in a purely civil contract merely based on certain adverse findings made by the C&AG (Comptroller and Auditor General) relating to the disposal of “rejects” of coal mines by a company which had a joint venture with the Karnataka Power Corporation Limited.

“The expression ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused’ clearly shows that the judge is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution. The judge must exercise the judicial mind to the facts of the case to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution,” a bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah said, referring to an earlier observation made by SC in the case of Prafulla Kumar Samal.

The court recalled its earlier observation: “That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the code, the judge which under the present code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on.

“This, however, does not mean that the judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”

In the present case, an order framing charges was issued on March 3, 2022, by a special CBI cases judge against M/s Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Ujjal Kumar Upadhaya, the chairman and managing director of the company, on the basis of a complaint lodged by the CBI relating to certain alleged irregularities in the disposal of coal rejects between 1993 and 2006. Aggrieved, the accused appealed in the SC.