SAJJAN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

(iii) The Court cannot act merely as a Post Office or • a mquthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider . the. broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the Court, any basic infirmities etc. However, at this stage, there cannot be a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidenc.e as if he was conducting a trial. (iv) If on the basis of the material on record, the Court could form an opinion that the accused might have committed offence, it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence. (v) At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into but before framing a charge the Court. must apply its judicial mind on the material placed on record and must be satisfied that the commission of offence by the accused was possible. (vi) At the stage of Sections 227 and 228, the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to find out if the facts emerging A B c D E F G H SAJJAN KUMAR v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 673 therefrom taken at their face value discloies the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. For this limited purpose, sift the. evidence as it cannot be expected even at that_ initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as . gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. A B (vii) If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge will be empowered to discharge the accused and at this stage, he is aot to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. [Para 17] [685-0-H; 686-A-FJ c

1.3. Keeping in view the principles regarding the; scope of exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 and D . 228, Cr.P.C., from the statements of PW-1, PW-2, PW-10 as well as of PW-8, it cannot be presumed that there was no case at all to proceed. The cloS:ure. report was prepared and filed before the magistrate on 31.07-.2008. The magistrate, on going through the report and after E hearing the submissions and after noting that the matter under consideration was being further investigated by the CBI and the investigation was pending and after finding that no definite opinion could be given in respect of the closure report, without passing any order closed. F the matter, giving liberty to the prosecution to move appropriate motion as and when required. In view of the order dated 31.7.2008 of the magistrate, declining to give definite opinion on the closure report since the same w:as under further investigation by CBI, no further probe/ G enquiry on that aspect is required. [Paras 18, 20, 21) [686- G-H; 680-A-F]