Sri S Prakash Babu S/O G … vs Station House Officer on 8 March, 2010

3

239 of Cr.P.C they do not seek discharge, but sought the

foiiowing reiief;

"It is therefore not possible for the. 

address a negative argument to show_j':how.::there_:"is. 

no material to frame charger'  law if

makers in their superior  hafvepfjustly' 

this burden, as the dutygof the Vprose.cuti_ori...toi show."

the evidence collected  far is valid, Cogent and
conclusive as iiaccused. Theprosecution
cannot shirk this  legal mandate.
Hence, this app'Iicatio_n."  the prosecution to
file   genevnihg-"'i how the evidence
 would bring about the
V~ihg'red;?ents§: to "e.stai3iish"the offence aileged together
V'r._Anames "offithje with the circumstances that

tiieix spea.k."'f ,  'V

Learned triaidudgee noticed the application was not for

» :V'se,ei<i.eng.pd.i¢st:h_arge but was an attempt to seek a direction

if'--to-.,theéR.I'*nve.s'tigating Officer to furnish information and

stifrngndvagriisifw rejected the appiication. It is against which

  A' ordervthe petitioners are before this Court.

4. Firstiy, it has to be noticed that the petitioners
have on their own voiition did not seek discharge on the

ground of insufficiency of materiais nor did they point out

5' 77 ,




4

to other circumstances which nuilifies the allegations made

against them. On the other hand, they _al.l_ege'~..vvthe

Investigating Officer has not disclosed;{incrimji*inlai'ti.fj'g_

aspects and the materials collec__ted,._t'0 sus't'airi'_';Vth'ei c'harg_e.fi

This attempt undoubtediy is mi'sAcoin_'ce'ivefd.-  .:'Th'e:7i:h'a?rge

sheet, which is the  ofA'V-investi'gvatio'n«,.,,, the"

compilation of aii the .mater,lals,'~so=far col'iec,ted,i It is the
final report under seciion  for all intent
and purposesfcontains'hprosecuition'.rifiaterial to raise the
charge.  arefnloftillilnlculpatory in nature,
 point out to the Court to
seelcr..discharg'e;:':-if  not do so, the Court trying the
offence'V"shal!,Vfollo'w.'.'t'h:e_"_.»aprocedure of trial of warrant cases

 isrequired,togexamine the final report submitted by

rift-h_e ..pro,sec"u.t__ion and to examine the accused if it is

'«,ne.cess'a'.ry.. 'for ascertainment as to whether sufficient

m4ateri.al'is placed before it to make out a prima facie case

 it against the accused to put them to trial. This exercise is

 requirement of law in the scheme of trial of warrant

'Hcases contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure in

Sections 239 to 242 and is therefore incumbent upon the

trial Court to examine the materials so far coliected.

.' K"?

'ile   
/ \ 5/
"K1



5

There is no question of the Court directing the

Investigating Officer to file any additional statemvent-«._to~.Viist

out incriminating or inculpating materials._;Tihe:"di'rectio.n~.»

sought for by the petitioners is tbere_fQre_~b'eyo:n.d. t"ne'_'sco-pe'V 

and ambit of Section 239 of 

certainly was not maintaina'b_l'e~..for suvctia relief."A"«1.i§;'%vgtatly, the'

same has been rejected. I Ad.ou:not'=fi_nd a'n'y'..i,l_lAegy.ality in the
order so passed calling for  

5. the ._g_'petit-ion} lfailsll and is rejected.
H0We_Ve.lT,_u"'tyl%li3:'1.:::;!3CCLE§Q(:lV"A "ca:nV_5certain|y apply seeking
disc|'iarg*e' b.efere..:t§:e"'itri'a--i. Court, which is the substantial

relief prtix/1__idedVtmder"Se'§:tion 239 of Cr.P.C.

 .....  

JUDGE

mv*