Inherent criminal jurisdiction and charge-framing standards allowed prosecution to proceed despite a prior revision bar.

Section 482 CrPC remains available in exceptional cases despite the bar on a second revision under Section 397(3), where intervention is needed to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice; the petition was therefore maintainable in principle. At the charge-framing stage, the court need only assess whether the material gives rise to strong suspicion, not conduct a trial-like evaluation of evidence. On the material alleging false entries, manipulation of donation accounts, and circumstances facilitating tax evasion, the discharge orders were unsustainable under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act and were set aside. The matter was remanded for further proceedings before the competent criminal court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after the petitioner had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in view of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (ii) Whether the orders discharging the respondents were sustainable when the matter was at the stage of framing of charges under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was maintainable after the petitioner had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court in view of Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The statutory bar against a second revision under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recognised, but the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 remained available in exceptional cases. That power could be exercised sparingly where the impugned order resulted in abuse of process, serious miscarriage of justice, or a clear error in the revisional order.

Conclusion: The petition under Section 482 was maintainable in principle.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders discharging the respondents were sustainable when the matter was at the stage of framing of charges under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not required to weigh the evidence as at final trial, and a strong suspicion based on the material is sufficient. The conduct alleged, including false entries, manipulation of donation accounts, and circumstances enabling evasion of tax, attracted the deeming reach of the explanations to Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reasoning that the acts amounted only to preparation was rejected as inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the material on record.

Conclusion: The discharge orders were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The matter was remanded for proceeding before the competent criminal court, and the prosecution was directed to continue in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 may be invoked despite the bar on second revision only to prevent abuse of process or miscarriage of justice, and at the charge-framing stage a prosecution under Section 276C(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 may proceed on strong suspicion where the material discloses wilful tax evasion through false entries or other enabling circumstances.

---