In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India on May 22, 2025, in the case of State Represented By Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam v/s Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi & Others, clarified the limited scope of a magistrate's power to discharge an accused at the pre-charge stage under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The judgment, delivered by Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, overturned orders from the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and a special court, which had discharged several accused primarily by relying on defense-produced documents.

The Case Background:

The case stemmed from an FIR registered by the CBI in 2006 against Rayapati Subba Rao (A-1), a Cotton Purchase Officer at the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI), and others, alleging criminal conspiracy, cheating, and corruption. The prosecution accused A-1, his son RVK Prasad (A-3), and an AMC supervisor Syed John Syda (A-2), along with 45 others, of a scheme to defraud the CCI. The alleged modus operandi involved purchasing cotton from farmers at lower market rates before the Minimum Support Price (MSP) announcement, hoarding it, and then reselling it to CCI at the higher MSP rates through benami names of farmers (A-4 to A-47). The CBI alleged a wrongful loss of over Rs. 21 crore to the CCI and the Government of India.

The Discharge Orders and Appeals:

After the chargesheet was filed, the accused sought discharge under Section 239 of the CrPC. A key point of contention was a letter dated January 31, 2007, from the CCI to the CBI, which stated that purchases made by A-1 were as per MSP guidelines and no loss was caused. Both the special court and, subsequently, the High Court relied heavily on this letter to conclude that the charges were "groundless" and discharged the accused.

Supreme Court's Analysis: Reaffirming Section 239 CrPC Limits

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the legal framework governing discharge under Section 239 CrPC. The Court highlighted that this section permits a magistrate to discharge an accused if, "upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under section 173... the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless".

Citing previous judgments, particularly State of Orissa v. Debendranath Padhi, the Supreme Court reiterated a crucial principle: at the stage of framing of charge, the accused does not have a right to file material or documents for consideration. The Court emphasized that allowing such a practice would lead to a "mini-trial" at a preliminary stage, defeating the object of the Code. The "record of the case" referred to in Section 227 (analogous to Section 239 for Sessions Courts) pertains to the documents submitted by the prosecution under Section 209.

The Supreme Court found that both the special court and the High Court had "patently illegally" relied on the letter dated January 31, 2007, which was brought on record at the instance of the defense. The Court stated that the discharge orders were based on the "assumption of the absence of loss to the CCI" derived from this document, rather than solely on the police report and accompanying documents.

The Verdict:

Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of discharge, emphasizing that the special court had deviated from the discretionary limits set out under Section 239 of the CrPC. The Criminal Appeals filed by the CBI were allowed, and the special court was directed to re-exercise its jurisdiction under Section 239 CrPC, uninfluenced by the previous observations, to decide whether a case for discharge exists or if charges are to be framed for trial.

This ruling reinforces the legal boundaries for discharge in criminal cases, ensuring that the trial process is not prematurely curtailed by the introduction of defense evidence at a preliminary stage. It underscores the principle that the prosecution's case, as presented in the chargesheet and accompanying documents, must primarily be considered at the discharge stage.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  

Section 173., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 209., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 227., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Section 239., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973