The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court should not go into the details of whether the materials presented would lead to conviction at the stage of considering the case under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The decision to discharge the accused should be based on whether the charge against the accused is groundless.

1. The complainant in C.C. No. 77 of 2003 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam is the revision petitioner.

2. The Inspector of Police, District Crime Bench, Erode District/ Revision petitioner, as complainant, filed a final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against the respondents herein, seeking appropriate punishment against them under Sections 468, 420 and 471 r/w 109, I.P.C. As per the final report dated 3.9.2002, the second respondent herein, who is arrayed as A-1, is the owner of a mini bus bearing Regn. No. TN 27 N 0214. The first respondent herein appears to be some influential person, who is helping this kind of bus operators, in obtaining permit or modification of the permit, as the case may be.

3. It was noticed that when the bus bearing Reg. No. TN 27 N 0214 was operating in Vellakoil Highway to Orapalyam, A.1 had no valid permit or valid variation of the permit, though he is owning a permit to ply the bus bearing Reg. No. TN 27 N 0214 in some other route. The original route appears to be from Vellakoil L.K.A. Tower to Poppini. When it was disclosed by checking, that he has violated the original permit and plied the bus in some other route, and when he was questioned, it appears that he had pro duced a Xerox copy of the letter dated 26.7.2001, as if, emanated from the Chief Minister’s Office, permitting variations in the original permit, thereby he was authorized to ply the above said bus in the disputed route. Further investigation revealed, that the document dated 26.7.2001 is not a genuine one, whereas, it was fabricated by the second accused/first respondent herein to help the second respondent/first accused. It is also the case of the prosecution, that the second respondent/first accused knowing fully well that it is a forged document, used the same as if genuine one. It is the further case of the prosecution also, that both the accused have cheated the transport authorities. In this way, completing the investigation, as stated above, a final report came to be filed against the respondents, seeking punishment for A-2 under Section 468, I.P.C. and seeking punishment for A-1 under Section 420 and 471, I.P.C. r/w 109, I.P.C.

4. After the appearance of the accused, they have filed C.M.P. No. 579/ 2003 (for the 2nd accused) and C.M.P. No. 580/2003 (for the first accused) under Section 239, Cr.P.C, for their discharge on the grounds that, the original of the alleged forged document has not been produced before the Court and no prima facie case has been made out against both the accused, for all the alleged offences, which were opposed.

5. Learned Judicial Magistrate, Kangeyam, in her elaborate order, running to 22 pages, had discussed the case, more or less threadbare, on merit, and came to the conclusion, that no case has been made out against any one of the accused, not only on the ground of non-production of the original, but also on the ground, that no case has been made out. Thus, concluding, the accused were discharged from the charges, which is under challenge in this Revision.

6. Heard Mr. A.N. Thambithurai, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

7. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the original of the disputed document, dated 26.7.2001, is not available either at the Regional Transport Office or in the office of the Chief Minister and, therefore it is not possible for the prosecution to produce, despite the concrete efforts taken by them and in this view for the nonproduction of the original, which should have been in the custody of either A-1 or A-2, throwing the prosecution case, at the inception, is not desirable. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate, that the materials placed before the Court would, prima facie , make out a case, not only under Section 468, I.P.C., but also under Section 420, I.P.C., which were not properly consid