Revision against Magistrate orders should ordinarily go to Sessions, while tax-prosecution defences are tested only at the charge stage.

A revision against a Magistrate's order should ordinarily be filed before the Court of Sessions, as concurrent revisional jurisdiction under the Criminal Procedure Code does not justify bypassing that forum in the normal course. At the charge stage, the court is confined to whether the pre-charge material discloses a prima facie offence: the complaint showed an obligation to deduct tax at source under section 194C and supported framing of charge under section 276B for failure to do so. Defences based on low amount, alleged lack of opportunity, later deposit of tax, and delay in prosecution were treated as matters for trial, not discharge.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a revision against an order of a Magistrate should ordinarily be filed before the Court of Sessions rather than directly before the High Court; (ii) Whether a prima facie case existed for framing charge under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C, and whether the defences based on small amount, alleged opportunity, deposit of tax, and delay in prosecution warranted discharge.

Issue (i): Whether a revision against an order of a Magistrate should ordinarily be filed before the Court of Sessions rather than directly before the High Court;

Analysis: Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers concurrent revisional powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions, while also barring a second revision. The appropriate forum for revising an order of a Magistrate is ordinarily the Court of Sessions, and a direct approach to the High Court should be discouraged unless a complicated question of law or fact makes such recourse necessary. The existence of concurrent jurisdiction does not justify bypassing the Sessions Court as a matter of course.

Conclusion: The direct revisions before the High Court were not maintainable as the normal revisional route lay through the Court of Sessions; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether a prima facie case existed for framing charge under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure to deduct tax at source under section 194C, and whether the defences based on small amount, alleged opportunity, deposit of tax, and delay in prosecution warranted discharge.

Analysis: The complaint and pre-charge material showed that the assessee, as contractor, was obliged to deduct tax at source from payments to sub-contractors under section 194C. The plea that each payment was below the threshold was rejected on the footing that the details in the complaint showed payments exceeding the statutory limit. The contention that no reasonable opportunity was given was also rejected because notice and reminders had been served and the assessee had not responded. The arguments based on the amount being petty, later deposit, and delay in launching prosecution were held to be matters not fit for discharge at the charge stage. The Court also held that the broad relief contemplated in Common Cause did not extend to taxing enactment offences of this nature.

Conclusion: A prima facie case for the offence under section 276B was made out and the charge was rightly framed; the issue was decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The revisions failed both on maintainability and on merits, and the order framing charge was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a revision against a Magistrate's order, the ordinary and proper forum is the Court of Sessions, and at the charge stage the court must confine itself to whether the pre-charge material discloses a prima facie offence under the tax law without finally adjudicating factual defences better left for trial.

---