IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.25136 of 2007 DILIP KUMAR YADAV & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR THRU.C.B.I.& ORS ----------- 9 13.08.2008 Heard the parties. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 2.4.2007, whereby and whereunder, the discharge petition filed by the petitioners under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been rejected in Sessions Trial No. 481 of 2006 by the court of 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna. Mr Kamal Nayan Choubey, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has submitted that the court below did not apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order, in as much as, there were materials to show that the petitioners have been framed in this case. It was also suggested on behalf of the petitioners that actually there was no material against them in the case diary so as to subject them rigours of trial. On the other hand, Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the C.B.I. has produced records including statement of witnesses, which according to him, shows that there were sufficient material for framing charge against the petitioners. This Court has carefully looked into the statements of different persons examined by the C.B.I. in course of investigation including those of Gopichand Gupta, Kamleshwar Mandal, Ganga Mandal, Amresh Kumar Singh, Sanjiv Mishra and 2 Sukhdeo Singh. All of them in their statement under Section 161 and/or Section-164 of the Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that petitioner no.1, a member of Legislative Assembly was the main conspirator at whose instance the entire offence had been committed. This Court can also not ignore the findings of the court below in the impugned order while rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioners wherein it has been clearly stated that both Sanjay Kumar and Sanjiv Mishra in their statement had not only disclosed the names of the petitioners but had alleged that they were the assailants of the deceased. Considering the entire materials on records, it becomes manifest that there are sufficient materials to hold that the petitioners and other accused persons in conspiracy with each other had committed murder of the deceased Butan Singh and the C.B.I. after completion of the investigation had submitted charge sheet against both the petitioners for an offence punishable under sections 302, 307, 341, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Arms Act. The scope of judicial review of an order passed under section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be very very limited, in as much as, it is requirement of section 227 of the Cr.P.C. itself that if upon consideration of records of the case and documents submitted therewith the court considers that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the 3 accused persons then alone the accused has to be discharged. In the present case, in view of statements of the witnesses, as noticed above, and in fact also relied by the court below itself while rejecting prayer for discharge of the petitioners, it cannot be said that there are no sufficient ground for proceeding against them. At the stage of discharge, the court is not supposed to weigh the evidence or to see correctness thereof, but has to only examine as to whether there are sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not. There is no scope of mini trial at the stage of discharge. Judged in this background when the facts and circumstances of the present case are examined in the light of materials on record, it becomes absolutely clear that no case of discharge was made out and consequently, this Court would find no error in the impugned order. In the result there is no merit in this application and the same is hereby dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar