Determining "No Legal Evidence" or "Manifestly Inconsistent Evidence": Test, Method, and Its Application by a Session Judge in Criminal Revision Against an Order of Issue of Process

 I. The Nature of the Test

The inquiry into whether there is "no legal evidence" or evidence "manifestly inconsistent" with the accusation is not an exercise in weighing credibility, reliability, or sufficiency of evidence. It is a threshold, objective screening of what is placed on the record — distinct from trial adjudication. The court asks only whether any evidence touching the offence exists at all, or whether the material on record is irreconcilably self-contradictory — never whether existing evidence is convincing or likely to result in conviction.

II. Governing Legal Standard 

R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21, laid down three categories warranting quashing under the inherent power (then Section 561-A):

1.      Where there is a legal bar against institution or continuance of the proceedings;

2.     Where the allegations in the FIR/complaint, even taken at face value, do not disclose an offence; and

3.     Where there is no legal evidence adduced in support of the charge, or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge.

The judgment itself draws the operative distinction: "It is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is manifestly and clearly inconsistent with the accusation made and cases where there is legal evidence which on its appreciation may or may not support the accusation in question. In exercising its jurisdiction... the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not."

This was carried forward as Category (iii) in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, and reaffirmed for its narrow, exceptional scope in State of A.P. v. Vangaveeti Nagaiah, (2009) 12 SCC 466 — confined strictly to total absence of evidence or evidence irreconcilable with the accusation, never to evidence that is merely weak or debatable.

III. Steps to Ascertain "No Legal Evidence" or "Manifest Inconsistency"

1.      Confine review to the record as it stands — FIR/complaint, Section 200/202 statements, annexed documents — taken at face value, without probing truth or credibility.

2.     Check for existence, not sufficiency, of evidence — does any evidence connecting the accused to the essential ingredients of the offence exist at all?

3.     Test for irreconcilable inconsistency — does evidence on record directly and manifestly contradict the accusation (e.g., a document negating dishonest intention at inception in a cheating case)?

4.     Avoid assessing reliability or credibility — that determination belongs exclusively to the trial judge after cross-examination.

5.     Apply caution and restraint — short of total absence or clear contradiction, the process order must stand; this power is used sparingly, in rare cases.

6.     Screen for legal ingredients independently — even if the material is wholly true, does it satisfy every statutory ingredient? Failure supports quashing under Bhajan Lal Category (i)/(ii) as well.

IV. Distinguishing the Two Situations

Aspect	No legal evidence / manifestly inconsistent (quashable)	Legal evidence, debatable on appreciation (not quashable)
Nature of evidentiary gap	Complete absence, or evidence directly contradicts the accusation	Some material exists that touches the accusation
Court's role	Limited, objective screening	Declines the exercise; leaves it to trial
Outcome	Process/proceedings quashed	Process sustained; matter proceeds to trial
Applicable stage	Issuance of process, quashing petition, revision against summoning order	Post-evidence, at trial after full appreciation

 Scope of the revisional court's examination: Once revision is correctly understood as maintainable, Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460, confirms that Section 397 jurisdiction is confined to examining the correctness, legality, or propriety of the order — not re-appreciating evidence. Interference is warranted only where the finding is based on no evidence, relevant material is ignored, or discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely — precisely the substantive content supplied by the "no legal evidence/manifest inconsistency" test.

VI. Illustrative Fact Situations for a Session Judge Hearing Criminal Revision

1. Total absence of legal evidence — accused not connected to the alleged act. Where the record implicates a named accused generally but is silent on any act, document, or statement against a specific co-accused, that co-accused's summoning suffers total absence of legal evidence qua him and must be quashed even if the case proceeds against others. Scan the record person by person — omnibus allegations against "all accused" are no legal evidence against any specific individual.

2. Manifest inconsistency — contemporaneous documents contradicting the FIR. A civil plaint filed the same date as the FIR, describing the transaction in materially different terms (lawful possession vs. forcible dispossession), directly and irreconcilably contradicts the criminal allegation. This is a legal, not factual, exercise since the contradiction is visible on the Magistrate's own record.

3. Commercial/cheating disputes lacking evidence of dishonest intention. In cheating cases, if the record shows only breach of a business arrangement with no evidence of false representation at the time of the transaction, the essential ingredient of dishonest inducement at inception is unsupported by any legal evidence — mere civil breach cannot be dressed as a criminal charge.

4. Flagrant, root-level inconsistencies in the complainant's own version. Irreconcilable contradictions across the FIR, supplementary statement, and chargesheet (conflicting dates, missing corroborating medical evidence despite specific claims) are self-defeating and manifestly inconsistent — visible on the face of the pre-trial record without needing cross-examination.

5. Sufficient material exists — revision must fail. Where a supplementary chargesheet contains witness statements and bank records linking an accused to an offence, that constitutes legal evidence prima facie, even if he was not named in the original FIR. A revisional court errs by re-appreciating such material — the case falls outside Category (iii) entirely, and the summoning order must be restored.

VII. Practical Checklist for the Session Judge

Step	What to examine	Quash or uphold?
1	Is there any material connecting this accused to any essential ingredient of the offence?	If none — quash (no legal evidence)
2	Does any document/statement directly contradict the accusation on a material fact?	If yes, and irreconcilable — quash (manifest inconsistency)
3	Is the material present but merely thin, uncorroborated, or open to two views?	Uphold — leave to trial court
4	Has the Magistrate recorded at least brief reasons showing application of mind?	If reasons are ex facie incorrect or wholly absent — may justify interference
5	Am I being asked to weigh credibility of witnesses or reliability of documents?	If yes — decline; that is the trial court's function
6	Is the summoning order interlocutory or intermediate/quasi-final?	It is intermediate/quasi-final — revision under Section 397 is maintainable; proceed to Steps 1-5

 

VIII. Key Distinction to Apply at Each Step

An order issuing process, being intermediate/quasi-final rather than interlocutory, is properly revisable under Section 397 CrPC (corresponding BNSS provision). But that revisional jurisdiction is confined to testing the order's legality and propriety — not re-appreciating evidence or substituting the Sessions Judge's own view of sufficiency. The moment the inquiry shifts from "does any legal evidence exist, or is it manifestly contradicted" to "is the existing evidence convincing enough," the Sessions Judge has exceeded Section 397's scope — that question is barred at the revision stage and belongs exclusively to the trial court after evidence is led and tested.

Print Page