Revisional interference at charge stage is limited; charges cannot be quashed by weighing evidence before trial.

Revisional interference at the stage of charge is limited: a court cannot sift or weigh evidence as if conducting a trial, and may interfere only where there is a legal bar to prosecution or the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose an offence. On the facts, the material before the trial court was sufficient to justify proceeding, so the High Court's quashing of the charges was unsustainable. The charges framed by the trial court were restored and the trial was directed to continue in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court, in revision, could quash the charges framed by the trial court by assessing the sufficiency of the evidence at the stage of charge.

Analysis: Revisional power is limited and cannot be exercised routinely or casually. At the stage of framing charges, the court is not required to weigh evidence as in trial or appeal. Interference is warranted only where there is a legal bar to the prosecution, or where the allegations, taken at face value, do not disclose the offence. The material before the trial court was sufficient to justify proceeding with the trial, and it was premature for the High Court to hold otherwise.

Conclusion: The High Court's order quashing the charges was unsustainable. The charges framed by the trial court were restored and the trial was directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: Revisional interference at the stage of charge was held to be impermissible on the facts, and the prosecution was allowed to continue on the basis of the charges framed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, a High Court cannot sift and weigh evidence at the stage of framing charge, and interference is justified only when there is a legal bar to the proceedings or the allegations do not disclose an offence even if accepted at face value.

---