Tax deduction default and inherent criminal jurisdiction: High Court held mens rea unnecessary and section 482 maintainable despite revision.

A petition under section 482 CrPC remained maintainable even though the impugned order had been challenged in revision, because the High Court's inherent jurisdiction is not wholly barred and can be used to prevent abuse of process or meet extraordinary circumstances. In prosecutions for failure to deduct and deposit tax at source under sections 194A, 200 and 276B of the Income-tax Act read with rule 30, the offence was treated as complete on default; mens rea was not an essential ingredient and late deposit did not erase liability. The accused had to show reasonable cause for non-compliance, and the discharge orders were set aside so the complaint could proceed to framing of charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when the impugned order had already been challenged in revision; (ii) Whether, for prosecution under sections 194A, 200 and 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, mens rea had to be pleaded and proved by the complainant, or whether the accused had to show reasonable cause for failure to deduct and deposit tax at source in time.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable when the impugned order had already been challenged in revision.

Analysis: The bar against a second revision does not completely exclude the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. That power remains available to prevent abuse of process or to meet extraordinary circumstances. Since the challenge was directed to the legality of the orders and not presented as a disguised second revision, the objection to maintainability was not accepted.

Conclusion: The petition under section 482 was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, for prosecution under sections 194A, 200 and 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 30 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, mens rea had to be pleaded and proved by the complainant, or whether the accused had to show reasonable cause for failure to deduct and deposit tax at source in time.

Analysis: Offences relating to deduction and deposit of tax at source were held to be complete on default, and mens rea was held not to be an essential ingredient. Late deposit did not wipe out the offence. The statutory scheme also placed the matter of reasonable cause on the accused, and the record did not show any material establishing bona fides sufficient to sustain the discharge orders. The earlier orders were therefore found to have misapplied the legal position.

Conclusion: Mens rea was not required to be proved by the complainant, and the accused had to account for the default by showing reasonable cause.

Final Conclusion: The discharge orders were set aside and the criminal complaint was directed to proceed with framing of charges against the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions for failure to deduct and deposit tax at source, the offence is complete upon default, mens rea is not an essential ingredient, and the accused must establish reasonable cause for non-compliance; the High Court's inherent jurisdiction may be invoked despite the bar on second revision where abuse of process is shown.

---