BHUSHAN KUMAR & Anr. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & Anr.

S.K. Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer v. Videocon C International Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 492: 2008 (2) SCR 36; Kanti Bhadra Shah & Anr. v. State of West Bengal (2000) 1 SCC 722: 2000 (1) SCR 27; Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi & Ors. (1976) 3 SCC 736: 1976 (0) Suppl. SCR 123; Dy. Chief Controller of Imports & Exports D v. Roshanlal Agarwal & Ors. (2003) 4 SCC 139: 2003 (2) SCR 621 - relied on.

2. It is inherent in Section 251 of the Code that when an accused appears before the trial court pursuant to E summons issued under Section 204 of the Code in a summons trial case, it is the bounden duty of the trial Court to carefully go through the allegations made in the charge sheet or complaint and consider the evidence to come to a conclusion whether or not, commission of any F offence is disclosed and if the answer is in the affirmative, the Magistrate shall explain the substance of the accusation to the accused and ask him whether he pleads guilty otherwise, he is bound to discharge the accused as per Section 239 of the Code. The petition filed G before the High Court under Section 482 of the Code was maintainable. However, on merits, the impugned order dated 30.07.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi is confirmed. [Paras 17-19] [706-G-H; 707-A-D] U. P. Pollution Control Board v. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar H Modi & Anr., (2009) 2 SCC 147: 2008 (17) SCR 349; Pepsi BHUSHAN KUMAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. 699