Revisional courts cannot reassess factual defenses when charges disclose a prima facie case.

On 26 January 2017, acting on secret information regarding gambling, the police searched premises where Monu @ Mohan, Deepak Katariya, Mahesh Jethwani and Prahlad Rupani were present and allegedly watching a cricket-match recording.

The police seized ₹2,10,600 from Monu @ Mohan and Deepak Katariya, along with an LED television, a satta slip and 22 mobile phones.

A crime was registered under Sections 467 and 468 of the IPC, Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 4 of the Gambling Act.

Statements of co-accused recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act allegedly implicated ten persons, following which a charge-sheet was filed against the applicants and other accused.

The Trial Court subsequently framed charges under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act and Section 4 of the Gambling Act. The applicants challenged the framing of charges and sought discharge.

The Court applied the principles governing limited revisional jurisdiction, holding that revision is supervisory and does not ordinarily permit a detailed re-appreciation of evidence unless necessary to prevent gross miscarriage of justice or correct patent illegality.

At the stage of framing charges, the Trial Court is required only to determine whether the material placed by the prosecution discloses a prima facie case; the probative value of that material and the accused’s factual defences are matters for trial.

The proceedings involved the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the IPC, Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and Section 4 of the Gambling Act, along with the revisional jurisdiction invoked under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

The applicants’ contentions—that they were merely watching an old cricket recording, that nothing was seized from their personal possession, and that there was no documentary, conversational or other direct evidence against them—were treated as substantive factual defences.

The Court held that assessing the evidentiary value of the seized cash, television, satta slip, mobile phones and statements of co-accused would require a factual inquiry and appreciation of evidence, which could not ordinarily be undertaken in revision at the charge-framing stage.

Since the Trial Court had considered the charge-sheet material and found a prima facie case sufficient to frame charges, and since no jurisdictional error, patent illegality or material irregularity was demonstrated, revisional interference was unwarranted.

The order dated 21 November 2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore, in S.T. No. 528/2017 was affirmed, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.