Supreme Court Holds Trial Court Cannot Rely on Defence‑Summoned Documents to Discharge Accused at S.239 CrPC Stage

A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and Pankaj Mithal heard appeals by the CBI challenging common orders of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Special CBI Court which had discharged 11 accused in a large‑scale alleged diversion of Minimum Support Price (MSP) benefits. The appeals raised the question whether the trial court and the High Court erred in discharging the accused under Section 239 CrPC after relying on documents summoned at the instance of the defence — in particular a letter from the Cotton Corporation of India (CCI) stating no loss was caused.

The Court set aside the orders of discharge, held that a magistrate could not base discharge on material placed on record at the behest of the accused beyond the final report and documents under Section 173 CrPC, and remitted the matters to the special court to re‑exercise its jurisdiction afresh under Section 239. The Court noted that while the magistrate must “sift” and not be a mere post‑office, the stage of framing of charge was not a forum for a mini‑trial or for the accused to adduce defence material. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The orders impugned proceed on the assumption of the absence of loss to the CCI on the basis of the letter dated 31.01.2007. Non‑compliance with the discretionary limits as set out under section 239 of the CrPC warrants the interference of this Court.” The appeals were allowed and the Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed by the accused were dismissed; the special court was directed to decide discharge or framing of charges uninfluenced by this judgment.

Background The CBI registered FIR RC No.11(A)/2006 alleging that between 1994 and 2006 officers and private traders conspired to hoard cotton bought at market rates and later sell it to the CCI at MSP through benami farmers, causing alleged wrongful loss of approximately Rs.21.19 crore. The chargesheet (filed 31.12.2009) charged multiple persons including a Cotton Purchase Officer (A‑1) and his son (A‑3) with offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) PC Act, supported by bank records, land‑holding discrepancies, alleged forged takpatties and a GEQD opinion.

Before charges were framed, the accused sought and obtained production of correspondence between the investigating officer and CCI. CCI’s reply dated 31.01.2007 stated that purchases were “as per MSP guidelines” and that “no loss was caused,” language which the special court and High Court treated as decisive and discharged the accused under Section 239. The High Court affirmed, applying the approach that discharge was permissible where only “some suspicion” existed or where two views were possible.

The Supreme Court reviewed established precedents including Debendranath Padhi and its progeny reaffirming that at the stage of framing charge the court’s enquiry was confined to the final report and documents filed under Section 173, and the accused did not have a right to file defence material to defeat the prosecution at that stage. The Court found that reliance on documents summoned at the instance of the defence, including the CCI letter, fell outside permissible ambit and amounted to exceeding statutory discretionary limits. The Court therefore set aside the discharge orders and remitted the matter to the special court to reconsider discharge/frame charges under Section 239, “uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this Judgment.” No interim stay on investigation or trial was granted.

Case Details: Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. [SLP (Crl.) NOS. 5941-5951 OF 2022] (2025 INSC 758) Case Title: State represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Visakhapatnam v. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, Advocate (for the CBI) For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shoeb Alam, Senior Counsel (for the respondents/accused)