Revisional interference with charge framing is limited where tax-default evidence supports wilful attempt to evade income-tax and trial must decide necessity.

Revisional jurisdiction under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a second appeal and interference is justified only for a clear procedural defect, manifest error of law, or miscarriage of justice. On the facts, material showing prolonged tax default, sale of property while arrears remained outstanding, and non-utilisation of sale proceeds for the tax liability was sufficient to support the framing of charges for wilful attempt to evade income-tax. Whether the sale was compelled by urgent necessity was a matter for trial. Subsequent payment of the arrears did not, by itself, extinguish the prosecution or make the charge groundless.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders framing charges for wilful attempt to evade income-tax were liable to be quashed in revision under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised as if it were a second appeal. Interference is warranted only where there is a clear defect in procedure, a manifest error of law, or a resulting miscarriage of justice. On the facts, there was material to show prolonged default in payment of tax, sale of property while arrears remained outstanding, and non-utilisation of sale proceeds towards the tax liability. The question whether the sale was justified by some urgent necessity was a matter for trial. Subsequent payment of the arrears did not by itself nullify the prosecution or render the charge groundless.

Conclusion: The challenge to the framing of charges failed and the revisional court declined to interfere.

---