Inherent powers and prima facie test: High Court jurisdiction under section 482 survives, and a tax complaint may proceed on material discrepancies.

Section 397(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code does not curtail the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 482, which remains available sparingly to prevent injustice and secure the ends of justice. At the discharge stage under section 245, the court must only examine whether a prima facie case exists and should not conduct a trial-like appraisal of evidence; a strong suspicion on the material may justify further proceedings. Applying that test, discrepancies between accounts filed with the tax department and those submitted to the bank were sufficient to warrant continuation of the complaint under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, and the orders dismissing it were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could invoke inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the earlier revisional remedy under section 397(3) of that Code; (ii) whether the complaint under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was wrongly dismissed for want of a prima facie case under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether the High Court could invoke inherent powers under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 despite the earlier revisional remedy under section 397(3) of that Code.

Analysis: The bar under section 397(3) does not take away the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under section 482. That power is to be exercised with self-restraint and sparingly, but it remains available where interference is necessary to prevent failure of justice or secure the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The preliminary objection failed and invocation of section 482 was competent in the circumstances.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint under section 276C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was wrongly dismissed for want of a prima facie case under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: At the stage of considering discharge under section 245, the court is required to see whether a prima facie case exists. The court is not to weigh the evidence as at the trial, and even a strong suspicion founded on material before the Magistrate may justify framing of charge. On the facts, the accounts filed with the Department and those submitted to the bank disclosed significant discrepancies and were sufficient to justify further proceedings.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the complaint at the threshold was erroneous and the complaint ought to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the courts below were set aside and the matter was restored for proceeding further on merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not bar the High Court's inherent powers under section 482, and at the stage governed by section 245 of that Code the test is whether a prima facie case exists, not whether the prosecution has already proved its case.

---