Discharge of Accused - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs

27Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court: High Court Approval Must for Withdrawing Cases Against MPs and MLAs

The Supreme Court held that for withdrawing prosecution against sitting or former MPs/MLAs, the State must seek the High Court's permission under the mandate of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The Public Prosecutor must disclose all reasons for seeking withdrawal, enabling the High Court to apply its judicial mind and pass a reasoned order. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Bal Kumar Patel @ Raj Kumar, was the subject of multiple First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in June 2007 at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, Raebareli. These included Case Crime No. 656/07 and others under Sections 25, 27, 30 of the Arms Act, as well as Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code concerning an arms license. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate,...

Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not automatically barred against a company declared sick under SICA, even if a restraint order under Section 22A exists. The nature of the restraint and the purpose of the cheque issuance are mixed questions of law and fact to be decided during trial based on evidence. Furthermore, a Magistrate lacks the inherent power to review or recall the issuance of summons. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., supplied goods to the first respondent, L.D. Industries Ltd., which was declared a sick company by the BIFR. Towards the payment for these supplies, the accused company issued several cheques in 2001, which were subsequently dishonoured due to "insufficient funds"....

CBI vs. Accused: Supreme Court Rules on Discharge in Cotton MSP Scam Case

The Supreme Court held that the trial court and High Court erred in discharging the accused under Section 239 CrPC by relying on defence-produced documents (CCI’s exoneration letter) at the pre-trial stage. Reiterating Debendra Nath Padhi, it ruled that only prosecution material under Section 173 CrPC can be considered for discharge, not extraneous evidence. The Court emphasized that discharge requires examining whether the chargesheet discloses a prima facie case, without evaluating defence merits. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration under Section 239 CrPC, barring reliance on non-prosecution documents. Facts Of The Case: The case involves a criminal conspiracy where Rayapati Subba Rao (A-1), a Cotton Purchase Officer (CPO) of Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), Guntur, alleg...