Sunil Mehta & Anr Vs State of Gujarat & Anr

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed on 20.02.13
CrPC 1973 - Chapter XV & Part B of Chapter XIX - Whether depositions of the complainant and his witnesses recorded before cognizance is taken by the Magistrate would constitute evidence for the Magistrate to frame charges against the accused? - No

Union of India vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4

Supreme Court observed “( 1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under Section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
( 2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
( 4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under Section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced court cannot act merely as a Post Office or a mouthpiece 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 appearing in the case and so on. This however does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.”

State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39

Supreme Court observed “… … Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding….it is only for the purpose of deciding prima facie whether the Court should proceed with the trial or not. If the evidence which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, cannot show that the accused committed the offence, then there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial. …. ”

P. Vijayan Vs State of Kerala & Anr, Supreme Court in 2010

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 not to see whether the trial will end in conviction or acquittal. ……..the sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the Court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him. …….At the time of framing of the charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true. 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. Whether, in fact, the accused committed the offence, can only be decided in the trial.”

Nakul Kohli Vs State of GNCT, Delhi High Court on 09.07.2010

Charge can be framed on the basis of fhotocopy of a forged document...
Photocopying a document, which is not genuine and with the kind of technology that is available now, wherein exactly similar copies of the original can be made, would fall within the ambit of making a false document. With the advent of technology, scanners and computerized colour photocopiers produce identical copies which are exactly similar to the original. Excluding photocopying/printing from the ambit of a “false document” would be giving too narrow a reading to the word `makes‟ as used in Section 464 First (a)becouse said word is not limited by the subsequent words signs, seals or executes. If the word `makes‟ was to confine to signing or executing, then there was no need of introducing this word in the said Section. It is settled law that the words used in an enactment are not superfluous.
Hon'ble Delhi high court further observed,"The contention of the learned counsel that he should be discharged at this stage for offences under Section 471 and 474 IPC as the document is a photocopy and thus a secondary evidence, is also untenable, because in a given case where a photocopy is used as the primary offending article, the same would be the primary evidence for the purpose of trial of the said case. Moreover, as to how a document is to be proved, whether by way of primary or secondary evidence is not required to be considered at the stage of framing of charge."