D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revision is directed against the order of the Special Judge passed on 13. 11. 2000 whereby he has rejected the application of accused Nos. 4 and 5 for being discharged of the offences u/s. 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Act.

( 2 ) SHRI M. M. Tirmizi, learned Counsel for the revisionist and Shri H. H. Patel, learned A. P. P. have been heard.

( 3 ) IT may be mentioned that applications of accused Nos. 4 and 5 for discharge u/s. 227 Cr. P. C. was rejected, but the instant revision has been filed only by Ibrahimbhai @ Ibu Kalumiya Mansuri, who is said to be accused No. 5, before the trial Judge. As such the case of accused No. 4 for discharge is not being considered nor this order shall apply either in favour or against the accused No. 4.

( 4 ) SEVERAL objections have been taken by the learned A. P. P. regarding jurisdiction of this Court to interfere in such matters and also in what manner the impugned order should be examined and disturbed.

( 5 ) LEARNED A. P. P. Shri Patel has referred to the case of STATE OF U. P. rf UDAINARAYAN and ANR. , reported in (1999) 8 SCC 741 and has drawn my attention in what manner the revisional court can exercise powers of interference in such matters. The Apex Court, in this case, found that an application for discharge of the accused, who was facing the trial u/ss. 8, 10, 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was rejected by the trial Court in exercise of powers u/s. 239 Cr. P. C. but the High Court in exercise of revisional power discharged the accused persons and while discharging them the High Court has scrutinized the evidence and advancing elaborate arguments. On these facts it was held by the Apex Court that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction inasmuch as it acted as if it were considering an appeal against conviction. The order of discharge passed by the High Court was, therefore, set aside by the Apex Court. There can be no dispute about proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court in this case. The revisional court can not reappraise the evidenciary value of the material collected by the investigating agency while submitting the charge sheet. The case before me is however a case u/s. 227 Cr. P. C. and not u/s. 239 Cr. P. C. It is not a warrant trial which is to be conducted by the Sessions Judge.

( 6 ) SECTION 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. It is clear from this section that if upon considering the documents submitted by the prosecution and after hearing the submission of the accused and the prosecution the trial Judge finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused he shall discharge him and shall also record his reasons for discharging the accused. The important words used in this section are that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. There can be no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused if no material or evidence has been collected by the Investigating Agency in the course of investigation. It is true that u/s. 227 Cr. P. C. it is not to be seen whether there is sufficient evidence for conviction of the accused or not, but at the same time it has to be considered whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Sufficiency of ground is determined with reference to the material and evidence collected against the accused during investigation. Such material and evidence, may be in the nature of direct evidence, circumstancial evidence, documentary evidence, dying declaration etc. made by the dece

Click Here to Read the rest of this document