Revisional interference at charge stage is limited where prima facie material supports prosecution and factual responsibility remains disputed.

Revisional interference with an order framing charge in an Income-tax Act prosecution is limited to exceptional cases, and the High Court will not reappraise prima facie material at that stage. The trial court had found a prima facie case and treated the claim that the accused was only a technical director, and not responsible for the company's affairs, as a matter for evidence. Because the disputed responsibility issue required trial evidence and the prior challenge to the proceedings had already failed, the High Court declined to disturb the charge and allowed the prosecution to proceed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should interfere in revision with an order framing charge in a prosecution under the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the trial court had found a prima facie case against the accused.

Analysis: The prosecution had remained pending for a long period and an earlier challenge to the criminal proceedings had already failed. The trial court had framed charge after considering the prima facie material and had treated the plea that the applicant was only a technical director and not responsible for the company's affairs as a matter requiring evidence. Revisional interference at the stage of framing of charge is confined to exceptional cases, and the High Court does not reassess prima facie evidence or disturb findings that are essentially factual. The proper course was to permit the trial to proceed and to have the disputed questions tested at evidence.

Conclusion: Interference in revision was not warranted, and the challenge to the order framing charge failed.

---