https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175554 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. en-us Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Nov 2015 14:19:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175554 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. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 17 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175554