Inherent jurisdiction cannot bypass a time-barred revision, and prosecution needs prima facie proof of knowingly false verification.

A petition invoking inherent jurisdiction was held not maintainable where the proper remedy against a discharge order was revision, and that revisional remedy had become time-barred; the inherent power could not be used to bypass the expired statutory route. The court also found no prima facie material to sustain prosecution for knowingly false verification under section 277 of the Income-tax Act or cheating under section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, because the record did not show deliberate falsity or the elements of attempted cheating. The discharge order was therefore sustained and the petition rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a petition under the inherent powers could be entertained against an order of discharge when the proper remedy of revision was available and had become time-barred. (ii) Whether the complaint disclosed any prima facie material to sustain proceedings for offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act and section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether a petition under the inherent powers could be entertained against an order of discharge when the proper remedy of revision was available and had become time-barred.

Analysis: The impugned order was a discharge order, not an acquittal. The proper course was to invoke the revisional jurisdiction within limitation. Since no revision was filed in time and no application for condonation of delay was made, the inherent jurisdiction could not be used to bypass the barred statutory remedy. Leave against acquittal also did not arise because there had been no acquittal after trial.

Conclusion: The petition under the inherent jurisdiction was not maintainable and the challenge to the discharge order failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint disclosed any prima facie material to sustain proceedings for offences under section 277 of the Income-tax Act and section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis: For an offence under section 277, the prosecution had to show that the verification was not merely false but knowingly and deliberately false. The record did not contain evidence establishing that the accused knew the return to be false to his knowledge. The same deficiency affected the allegation of cheating under section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, for which no prima facie material was shown.

Conclusion: No prima facie case was made out for either offence.

Final Conclusion: The discharge order was sustained and the petition was rejected on maintainability as well as on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent powers cannot be invoked to circumvent an available but time-barred revisional remedy, and prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act requires proof of knowingly false verification, not mere falsity of the return.

---