Discharge of accused

When the accused offers an unqualified apology at an early stage of the contempt proceeding as a sincere and profound remorse, the courts generally drop such proceeding and discharge the accused while warning him to be careful in the future

However, this is not an absolute rule to be followed invariably in all cases

Exceptional facts and circumstances of a case may justify departure from this general rule

Courts may, despite the submission of an unqualified apology, convict the accused in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and may treat his apology only as a mitigating circumstance to impose a lesser punishment.

Application of the petitioner was to the effect that no case against him was made out, therefore, charge could not be framed against him

Validity

Court was not to delve into the veracity of the documents or the statements made by the witnesses; even admissibility of the documents or otherwise was also not the domain of the Court at such stage, as it would be holding a trial within trial

Sole purpose of S. 265-D, Cr.P.C was that the report under S. I73, Cr.P.C., and the statements and documents submitted provided prima facie basis to proceed with the trial; if prima facie case was made out, Trial Court was to continue with framing of charge and commencement of trial

Section 265-K, Cr.P.C., provides jurisdiction to Trial Court to discharge/acquit the accused, if it considers that there is no probability of the accused being convicted of the offence

Impugned order did not suffer from error of law or of jurisdiction calling for interference by High Court

Petition was dismissed.

Petitioners assailed the order passed by Magistrate whereby the accused was discharged from the charges after the Investigating Officer had found him innocent

Accused was alleged to have been found in possession of 60 kilograms of charas and 20 kilograms of opium

Report of Investigating Officer revealed that the signature of first witness of recovery memo were not available on the recovery memo; that the said witness had also denied recovery of contraband in his presence; that the earlier Investigating Officer of the case had stated that he was neither appointed as the Investigating Officer nor had he gone to the place of occurrence; that neither the contraband was sealed nor any parcel was made and it was found to be laying open in the police station and that one of the petitioner had arranged the charas and opium just to save himself and others from the consequences of the FIR which was registered against them under Ss. 365-A, 342, 416 & 34, P.P.C., by the brother of accused

Two of the petitioners were DSPs and one of them was SP at CID police station at the relevant time and after departmental inquiry they were dismissed from service on the basis of said allegations

No illegality or irregularity was committed by the Magistrate in discharging the accused

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

After taking cognizance by the Trial Court only three results are possible in a criminal case, firstly conviction of the accused either upon admission of guilt by him or on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution; secondly, acquittal of the accused either under S. 249-A or 265-K, Cr.P.C. or on the basis of failure of the prosecution to prove its case on merits beyond reasonable doubt and thirdly, withdrawal from prosecution by a Public Prosecutor under S.494, Cr.P.C.

Duty Magistrate instead of sending accused to judicial lock up discharged him of the offence as complainant himself had investigated the case

Validity

No legal bar existed that complainant of case registered under Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, could not be the investigating officer of that case

Functioning of police officer in a case of narcotics, in his dual capacity as a complainant and as an investigating officer, was neither illegal nor unlawful, so long as it did not prejudice the case of accused person

Question of prejudice (if any) could not be proved at the time of trial and an accused could not be discharged on such ground without recording of evidence by Trial Court

High Court set aside order passed by the Magistrate as the same was result of colourful exercise of his powers and was passed on the basis of extraneous reasons

High Court directed to take accused in custody and remanded the matter to Magistrate to decide application for judicial remand

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

No provision of law existed preventing an investigating agency from conducting reinvestigation or even multi-investigations after discharging an accused in earlier investigation

Such is subject to condition that investigator has discovered some new evidence connecting accused with commission of offence which were not in his knowledge during earlier investigation

If investigating agency intends to reinvestigate case, right course is to seek permission form Magistrate or a Court which passed for closure for earlier investigation.

Magistrate may discharge an accused person during investigation but the same has to be done on report of police and not at his own

If Magistrate considers that there is no case whatsoever against accused person in custody then accused cannot be kept in custody by restricting his right of liberty

Provision of S.497, Cr.P.C. takes care and to order straight away under S.63, Cr.P.C. is contrary to the provisions of S.497, Cr.P.C.

Investigation was to be completed without unnecessary delay, and where it was not completed within the period of 14 days from the date of recording of FIR; an interim report was to be forwarded to the court by the Public Prosecutor

In the present case, applicability of S.169, Cr.P.C., for discharge of accused was ruled out of consideration as in cross FIR, petitioner was also accused for similar offence

If one accused had been discharged as per report then the petitioner would also deserve to be treated in similar manner

Despite lapse of three years from the date of lodging of FIR, challan had not been put in court

Observations made in the impugned report were quashed by the High Court with direction that prosecution would submit challan before the court within a period of 14 days and Court to initiate trial in both the FIRs.

Complainant was aggrieved of the order passed by Trial Court whereby he affirmed opinion of Investigating Officer whereby accused was placed in Column No. 2 of challan

Validity

Main theme of S. 169, Cr.P.C. was availability of sufficient or deficient evidence on the basis of which Investigating Officer had to form opinion about guilt or innocence of accused

Powers under S. 169, Cr.P.C. were to be exercised by Investigating Officer when he could not find sufficient evidence or when there was reasonable ground or suspicion to justify forwarding of accused, in such circumstances Investigating Officer could place name of accused in Colum No. 2 of challan and thereafter it was the job of Trial Court whether to agree with the opinion of Investigating Officer or not

If the Trial Court did not agree with opinion of Investigating Officer it might summon accused placed in Column No. 2 of challan and could treat him as a regular accused by formally charge-sheeting him

Only irregularity committed by Investigating Officer/Station House Officer was that he while releasing respondent under S. 169, Cr.P.C. did not obtain his bail bond with or without sureties

High Court directed accused to submit bail bond to the satisfaction of Trial Court

Petition was dismissed accordingly.

Petitioner sought his discharge on the ground that he was not surrendered to foreign country within two months after he was taken into custody

Validity

Failure on the part of Government of Pakistan to extradite and convey petitioner out of Pakistan was due to pendency of criminal cases against him and were being tried in court of competent jurisdiction

Proper inquiry proceedings were conducted under S.10 of Extradition Act, 1972, and High Court under S.12 of Extradition Act, 1972, had jurisdiction to discharge the petitioner

Petitioner sought his discharge and not release on bail as his bail had already been dismissed by Supreme Court

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

S. 253-Discharge of accused-High Court's order, upholding that of trial Court un­exceptionable-Special Leave to Appeal to SuprePne Court refused by Supreme Court.