Revisional interference at charge stage remains narrow where materials disclose grave suspicion and support framing of charge.

Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is confined to illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and the High Court does not reappreciate evidence as in appeal. At the charge stage, the court asks only whether the materials disclose grave suspicion and whether the accused's explanation dispels it. Applying that standard, the complaint and charge-sheet were held sufficient because they indicated possible connivance by the Recovery Officer, including calling the auction purchaser on a different date, directing contact with the Recovery Inspector, and entertaining objections without the mandatory deposit under the applicable rules. The order framing charge was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference in revision was warranted against the order framing charge, and whether the materials disclosed a prima facie case and grave suspicion justifying the charges.

Analysis: The petition invoked revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The governing test for interference in revision is narrow: the High Court does not reassess evidence as in appeal and interferes only where there is illegality, material irregularity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. At the stage of charge, the Court is required only to see whether the materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused and whether the explanation offered removes that suspicion. On the facts, the complaint and charge-sheet contained material that the Recovery Officer had acted in a manner suggesting connivance, including calling the auction purchaser on a date different from the adjourned date, directing him to contact the Recovery Inspector, and entertaining objections without the mandatory deposit contemplated by the relevant rules. These circumstances were sufficient to support the trial court's view that a charge could properly be framed.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted and the order framing charge was upheld; the revision failed.

---