Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhati held that an accused cannot be discharged under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) by relying on the materials submitted by the defence instead of relying on the chargesheet and list of documents submitted by the prosecution.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of State Represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and others (2025). 

What was the Background of State Represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and others (2025) Case?   

• Between November 1994 and May 2006, Rayapati Subba Rao (A-1) served as Cotton Purchase Officer in the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), Guntur Branch. 
• CBI registered an FIR in 2006 alleging a conspiracy where A-1 and his son A-3 purchased cotton from farmers at lower market prices before the government announced Minimum Support Price (MSP). 
• The accused allegedly hoarded the cotton and later resold it to CCI at higher MSP rates using benami farmers (A-4 to A-47) as fronts. 
• Many of the alleged farmers had insufficient or no agricultural land to produce the large quantities of cotton they purportedly sold to CCI. 
• Bank accounts were opened in these farmers' names, often introduced by A-3 or his employees, and payments were allegedly diverted through forged signatures. 
• The prosecution claimed a wrongful loss of Rs. 21,19,35,646/- to CCI and corresponding wrongful gain to the accused persons. 
• CCI responded to CBI's inquiry in 2007 stating that no rules were violated, no loss was caused, no complaints were received, and all purchases were made as per MSP guidelines. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Special Court and High Court discharged the accused primarily based on CCI's letter dated 31st January 2007, which contradicted the prosecution's allegations of loss and rule violations. 
• The Supreme Court held that the lower courts committed a fundamental legal error by considering documents summoned by the defense at the discharge stage. 
• Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), courts can only consider the chargesheet and documents filed by the prosecution under Section 173, not additional material brought by the accused. 
• The Court ruled that allowing accused persons to file additional documents at the discharge stage would amount to a "mini-trial" and permit them to present their defense prematurely. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that the magistrate's role under Section 239 is to examine only the prosecution's material to determine if charges are groundless, not to conduct a detailed examination of defense evidence. 
• The orders of discharge were set aside as they exceeded the statutory limits of discretionary jurisdiction under Section 239 of CrPC. 
• The case was remanded to the Special Court to decide on discharge/framing of charges based solely on the chargesheet and accompanying prosecution documents, without considering the CCI correspondence relied upon earlier. 

What is Section 239 of CrPC? 

• Section 239 of CrPC lays down discharge in case of warrant cases instituted on police report. 
• Key components of Section 239 of CrPC: 
  • Consideration Requirement: The Magistrate must consider the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 of CrPC. 
  • Examination Power: The Magistrate has discretionary power to make such examination of the accused as he thinks necessary. 
  • Hearing Opportunity: Both the prosecution and the accused must be given an opportunity to be heard before any decision is made. 
  • Standard for Discharge: The Magistrate shall discharge the accused if he considers the charge against the accused to be groundless. 
  • Mandatory Recording: The Magistrate must record his reasons for ordering the discharge of the accused. 
• Section 262 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides for discharge. 
  • Section 262 (1) of BNSS provides for the time limit of filing the application for discharge. 
  • This provision provides that the accused may prefer an application an application for discharge within a period of 60 days from the date of supply of copies of document under Section 230 of BNSS.