Revisional order directing charge is not interlocutory; tax-evasion prosecution fails where disclosed assets were accepted in assessment.

An order setting aside discharge and directing framing of charge is not interlocutory where it conclusively affects the accused's right not to be tried, so revision under section 397(2) CrPC is maintainable. On the tax-prosecution issue, disclosure of the amounts and assets in returns, their acceptance in completed assessments, and the absence of sustainable concealment findings meant there was no prima facie wilful attempt to evade income-tax or wealth-tax. The discharge orders were therefore justified, the prosecution was unsustainable on the facts, and the accused were entitled to discharge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional orders directing framing of charge were interlocutory so as to bar revision under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; and (ii) whether the assessees could be prosecuted for wilful attempt to evade income-tax and wealth-tax when the amounts and assets found on search had been disclosed in their returns and accepted in assessment.

Issue (i): Whether the revisional orders directing framing of charge were interlocutory so as to bar revision under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: An order is not interlocutory if, when accepted, it would conclude the proceeding. An order setting aside discharge and requiring the accused to face trial affects the right of the accused in a substantial manner and is not a mere step in aid of the pending prosecution. The bar under section 397(2) does not apply to such orders.

Conclusion: The orders directing framing of charge were not interlocutory, and the revisions were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessees could be prosecuted for wilful attempt to evade income-tax and wealth-tax when the amounts and assets found on search had been disclosed in their returns and accepted in assessment.

Analysis: The amounts and valuables found in search were treated by the assessees as income from other sources or disclosed wealth, were returned within the relevant time, and were accepted by the Department in completed assessments. No penalty proceedings for concealment or furnishing of incorrect particulars were sustained. In these circumstances, the material did not disclose a prima facie wilful attempt to evade tax. The discharge orders passed by the Magistrate were justified on the record.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not sustainable on the facts, and the assessees were entitled to discharge.

Final Conclusion: The revisions succeeded, the orders of the City Sessions Court were set aside, and the Magistrate's discharge orders were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A revisional order setting aside discharge and directing framing of charge is not interlocutory where it conclusively determines the accused's right not to be tried, and prosecution for tax evasion cannot proceed when the allegedly undisclosed amounts have been duly returned, assessed, and accepted without any sustainable concealment finding.

---