TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be entertained after an earlier revision before the Sessions Court in view of the bar under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the prosecution for offences under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was barred by limitation or lacked the ingredient of entrustment so as to justify interference with the order framing charge.
Issue (i): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India could be entertained after an earlier revision before the Sessions Court in view of the bar under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Analysis: Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 bars a second revision after the remedy has been exhausted before the Sessions Court. The inherent and supervisory powers of the High Court are not barred in every case, but they are to be used sparingly and only where interference is necessary to prevent abuse of process, correct a serious miscarriage of justice, or remedy an apparent illegality. Mere availability of the labels under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not permit routine re-agitation of the revisional challenge.
Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable as a second revision in the ordinary course, and no exceptional ground existed to invoke inherent or supervisory jurisdiction.
Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution for offences under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was barred by limitation or lacked the ingredient of entrustment so as to justify interference with the order framing charge.
Analysis: For limitation, the relevant consideration was the date of the complaint, not the later date when cognizance was taken, because the intervening stages depend on the court process and not on the complainant. On merits, the materials showed that the file was taken in good faith for reconciliation of accounts and was not returned despite repeated demands. That was sufficient, at the stage of charge, to constitute a prima facie case of entrustment and refusal to return, which are the core features of criminal breach of trust. At the stage of framing charge, the court was only required to see whether there was a ground for presuming commission of the offence, not to conduct a detailed evaluation of defence.
Conclusion: The complaint was not time-barred, and a prima facie case under Sections 405 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was made out.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the charge-framing order failed both on maintainability and on merits, and no interference was warranted with the concurrent orders of the courts below.
Ratio Decidendi: After an unsuccessful revision before the Sessions Court, the High Court will not ordinarily entertain a further challenge under its inherent or supervisory jurisdiction unless the case discloses abuse of process, grave miscarriage of justice, or patent illegality; at the stage of charge, limitation and entrustment are to be assessed on a prima facie basis, with the complaint date being relevant for limitation where cognizance is delayed by court process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
