The court emphasized the necessity for a prima facie case to be established before proceeding to trial, underlining a judge's role in evaluating evidence without conducting a full trial.

JUDGMENT :

Moushumi Bhattacharya, J.

The Criminal Appeal arises out of an order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- Special Court for NIA Cases, Nampally, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.1895 of 2023.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed a petition filed by the appellant under section 227 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (‘Cr.P.C.’) for discharging the appellant for the alleged offences under section 120B of The Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’); sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘the UAPA Act’) and sections 4, 5 and 6 of The Explosives Substances, 1908 (‘the 1908 Act’).

Facts leading to the Impugned Order

3. The appellant herein - the petitioner before the Trial Court - was named as the Accused No.3 in a Chargesheet dated 29.03.2023. The appellant was arrested on 02.10.2022 and remanded in judicial custody.

4. The impugned order outlines the allegations against the appellant. The appellant was accused of conspiring to wage war against India by acts including meeting the other accused persons at Al-Marjaan Restaurant, Hyderabad, where the appellant allegedly received hand- grenades from the other accused persons. The Chargesheet alleged that the appellant planned to hurl the grenades at a public gathering during Dussehra following instructions from the Lashkar-e-Taiba (‘LeT’) operatives. Charges were framed against the appellant for conspiracy, committing terrorist acts, membership of terrorist gang and giving support to a terrorist organisation and possession of explosive substances. The appellant was charged under sections 120B of the IPC, sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA Act and sections 4, 5 and 6 of the 1908 Act. The appellant sought discharge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. primarily on the ground that the Prosecution was not able to make out a case against the appellant. The learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the premise that the investigation material, prima facie, reveals involvement of the appellant.

Submissions of the Parties

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant places emphasis on the requirement of dealing with each individual charge under section 227 of the Cr.P.C. and that the Trial Court has a statutory obligation to consider the records of the case and documents submitted before it. Counsel makes extensive arguments on the scope of Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. including on the necessity of considering whether the offences mentioned in the Chargesheet have been sufficiently made out. The Court cannot be expected to accept the statements of the Prosecution as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case: Niranjan Singh karam Singh Punjabi Vs. Jitendra B Bijjaya , [ (1990) 4 SCC 76 ].

6. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) submits that an FIR dated 01.10.2022 was lodged against the appellant/accused No.3 and others and investigation was handed over to the Special Investigation Team. Counsel relies on the confession of the accused No.1 and the disclosures made by the accused No.2 to submit that the appellant has been a part of the conspiracy hatched by LeT operatives to cause loss of life and property. Counsel relies on the evidence of involvement of the appellant to urge that the appellant was correctly charged under the Acts mentioned in the Chargesheet.

Decision

7. We have heard learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Speci