Section 250 BNSS: Discharge (Formerly Section 227 CrPC)

Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: Discharge

Official Bare Act Text

Override / Mandate Mens Rea (Intent) Actus Reus (Conduct) Punishment Limitation Monetary

(1) The accused may prefer an application for discharge within a period of sixty days from the date of commitment of the case under section 232.

(2) 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.

Statutory Defined Terms in this Section: (Click any term for official legal definition)

Inquiry Sec 2(1)(g) Investigation Sec 2(1)(h) Victim Sec 2(1)(w)

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 250

Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 empowers the Sessions Judge to discharge the accused when the allegations and evidence disclose no sufficient ground for proceeding.

Core Legal Standard: Section 250 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, they shall discharge the accused and record their reasons for so doing.
Evidentiary Proof & Admissibility: At this stage, the Judge must evaluate whether the evidence, taken at its face value, gives rise to grave suspicion or mere suspicion, discharging the accused if the latter exists.

Key Landmark Precedents:

Sajjan Kumar v. CBI (2010) 9 SCC 368: The Supreme Court formulated authoritative principles governing discharge: at the stage of framing charge or discharge, the court evaluates whether grave suspicion exists; the judge cannot conduct a mini-trial or weigh defense version.
Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4: Settled that if two views are equally possible from the prosecution material, and evidence gives rise to mere suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the Sessions Judge is duty-bound to discharge the accused.
Dilawar Balukurane v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 2 SCC 135: Held that the court cannot act as a mere post office or mouthpiece of the prosecution, but must exercise judicial mind to determine if a prima facie case is made out.

Legal Commentary:

Section 250 is the primary statutory exit for an innocent accused facing trial before the Sessions Court. A successful discharge application spares the accused years of grueling trial. The defense must demonstrate that even if all prosecution allegations are accepted as uncontroverted truth, no statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are made out.