Disputed facts in section 276B prosecution justified refusal of discharge and sustained the framed charge.

The Delhi High Court held that discharge under section 276B of the Income-tax Act was not warranted where the alleged default depended on disputed factual questions about the nature of the credit to the Government account and the accounting treatment of the amount. Because the materials did not conclusively establish absence of an offence at the discharge stage, the Court found no legal infirmity in the framed charge. The revision challenge to the order refusing discharge therefore failed, and the order declining discharge was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge from the alleged offence under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the contention that the amount was merely shown as payable and no actual payment had been made, and whether the charge was bad in law.

Analysis: The dispute turned on competing versions regarding the nature of the credit to the Government account and the accounting treatment of the amount. The Court held that the matter involved disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication. On that basis, it could not be concluded at the discharge stage that no offence was made out or that the framed charge was legally unsustainable.

Conclusion: The challenge to the order refusing discharge failed, and the charge under section 276B was held not to be bad in law.

Final Conclusion: The revision was dismissed and the order declining discharge was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the alleged offence depends on disputed factual questions and the materials do not conclusively show absence of an offence, discharge is not warranted and the charge may be sustained.

---