Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 CrPC cannot reopen factual issues or operate as a second revision in disguise.

Affidavit evidence cannot ordinarily be treated as proof unless the procedural law expressly permits it, so an age-based plea and reliance on departmental circulars could not justify interference under section 482 CrPC. Questions about a partner's liability, including the effect of not signing the return, were factual matters for the trial court and were not suitable for inherent jurisdiction at the charge stage. No convincing material connected the husbands with abetment or conspiracy, so their discharge was sustained. A petition under section 482 cannot be used as a second revision in disguise after dismissal of revisions, and such use of inherent power was held impermissible.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an affidavit could be treated as evidence to claim discharge on the ground of advanced age and departmental circulars. (ii) Whether the question of a partner's liability, including absence of signature on the return, could be determined in proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (iii) Whether the husbands of the partners could be said to have abetted or conspired in the filing of the false return. (iv) Whether the petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code were maintainable after dismissal of revisions, or amounted to a second revision in disguise.

Issue (i): Whether an affidavit could be treated as evidence to claim discharge on the ground of advanced age and departmental circulars.

Analysis: Affidavits are not treated as evidence unless the governing procedural law specifically permits their use. The Evidence Act does not extend to affidavits in the ordinary sense, and the Criminal Procedure Code permits affidavits only in limited situations such as matters covered by sections 295 and 296. Proof of age and entitlement to an exemption from prosecution is not formal evidence of that kind and requires material to be placed before the trial court.

Conclusion: The plea based on affidavit and advanced age could not justify interference under section 482.

Issue (ii): Whether the question of a partner's liability, including absence of signature on the return, could be determined in proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: The extent of a partner's responsibility and the significance of not signing the return are factual matters to be assessed on the material before the trial court. At the stage of framing of charge, the court only considers whether there is sufficient material to proceed, not whether the accused will ultimately be convicted. Such factual adjudication was not appropriate in inherent jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The challenge to the charge against the partner was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the husbands of the partners could be said to have abetted or conspired in the filing of the false return.

Analysis: The record showed no convincing material that the husbands had conspired in, or abetted, the alleged offence. Mere attendance before the tax authorities was not enough to raise an inference of participation in the false return. The concurrent finding that there was no material to connect them with the offence was upheld.

Conclusion: The discharge of the husbands was sustained.

Issue (iv): Whether the petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code were maintainable after dismissal of revisions, or amounted to a second revision in disguise.

Analysis: A petition under section 482 cannot be used to secure what is in substance a further revision after the revisional court has already decided the matter. The inherent power is not meant to bypass the statutory limitation on second revisions.

Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable in substance and were dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution against the firm and the two partners was left to proceed before the trial court, while the discharge of the husbands remained undisturbed, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court was held not to be available as a substitute for a second revision.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code cannot be invoked to reopen factual questions or to pursue a second revision in disguise after the revisional court has already adjudicated the matter.

---