Section 227 CrPC Discharge: Judge Must Sift Evidence, Not Act as Prosecution's Post Office, Says Supreme Court

The prosecution alleged that in February-March 1972 the first respondent, a Joint Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare, conspired with the second, a Land Acquisition Officer, to obtain Rs. 4,18,642.55 as compensation for Cantonment land at Cuttack by concealing that it was Khasmahal land belonging to the Government; the charges were under Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B IPC (paras 2, 12). The Special Judge, Puri discharged both under Section 227 CrPC and the Orissa High Court dismissed the Union's revision (para 2). The appeal raised the scope of Section 227, then a new provision with no direct decision of the Court (para 3).

The 1973 Code dispensed with commitment enquiries; the trial judge first examines the police material to see whether a prima facie case is made out, a course meant "to avoid frivolous prosecutions" (para 5). As the power now rests with a senior judge, a discharge for recorded reasons should not normally be disturbed (para 6). Section 227 shows the judge "is not a mere post office to frame the charge at the behest of the prosecution"; he sifts the evidence without weighing it as at trial (para 7). Following State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, strong suspicion may justify a charge though not a conviction, and committing magistrates could weigh evidence for that limited purpose (paras 8-9). On the facts, the first respondent's own letter disclosed that the land was Government land, and official records and reports showed its Khasmahal character, so no concealment was made out (paras 13-17). The speed of the proceedings was explainable, the compensation covered only the lessee's interest, the valuation was not excessive, and there was no legal evidence of a meeting of minds (paras 18-24).