Inherent jurisdiction cannot bypass the second-revision bar where vicarious liability averments under tax prosecution are missing.

A petition styled under section 482 CrPC was treated as a disguised second revision and held barred by section 397(2), so inherent powers could not be used to bypass the statutory limitation. On merits, the complaint lacked a clear averment that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's business, which is necessary to fasten vicarious liability under section 278B of the Income-tax Act. The absence of the legally required notice to treat the partners as principal officers was also noted. The discharge of the accused partners from the tax prosecution was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the order discharging the accused in a prosecution under sections 276B and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was barred as a second revision under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether the discharge of the accused partners was justified for want of necessary averments and notice.

Analysis: The petition, though styled under section 482, was in substance a second revision against the discharge order affirmed by the Sessions Judge, and the bar under section 397(2) could not be bypassed by invoking inherent jurisdiction. On merits, the complaint did not contain a specific averment that the respondents were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the firm's business, which is necessary to attract vicarious liability under section 278B. The courts below also relied on the absence of notice treating the partners as principal officers, and the legal position noticed by the Court supported the view that, in the circumstances of the case, the prosecution could not proceed.

Conclusion: The petition was not maintainable as a disguised second revision, and the discharge of the accused was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order discharging the accused partners from the tax prosecution was sustained, and no interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: The inherent powers of the High Court cannot be used to circumvent the statutory bar on a second revision, and a prosecution under section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requires a clear averment that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business, together with the legally required notice where applicable.

---