AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
The present criminal miscellaneous petition is directed against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Patiala, dated 9.12.1988 and that of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala dated 7.5.1991. Both the courts had held that prima facie the petitioners have violated section 192 of the Income Tax Act (for shor "the Act") and liable to be prosecuted under Section 276B of the said Act. Charge was directed to be framed.
The relevant facts are that a complaint was filed by the Income Tax Officer alleging that Gurdit Singh and Baljit Kaur during the financial year 198182 filed a return showing that salaries have been paid to five of the employees, Rs. 31,383/ had to be deducted toward income tax liability. The company and its Directors failed to deduct and deposit the amount due and thus violated section 192 of the Act.
Learned trial Court held that prima facie case was drawn and it was a fit case, therefore, for framing of charge. The revision petition fails in the court of Sessions. The second revision petition was filed in this Court.
When the petition was listed for hearing, none appeared for the petitioners. Therefore, the Court did not have the advantage of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners. All the same, record has been perused.
Under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a second revision petition after the first had been dismissed is not maintainable with the High Court. More often than once it has been observed that inherent powers of the Court should not be utilised. Reference to some of the precedents in this regard would be in the fitness of things. In the case of Dharampal and others v. Smt. Rameshri and others, 1993(1) RCR(Crl.) 696 : AIR 1993 SC 1361 , the Apex Court held as under :
"......The Sessions Judge had dismissed the said application on 14th May, 1979. Section 397(3) bars a second revision application by the same party. It is now well settled that the inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code cannot be utilised for exercising powers which are expressly barred by the Code. Hence, the High Court had clearly erred in entertaining the second revision at the instance of Ist respondent. On this short ground itself, the impugned order of the High Court can be set aside."
Similarly, in the decision rendered in the case of Deepti @ Arati Rai v. Akhil Rai & ors., Judgement Today 1995(7) Supreme Court 175 the Supreme Court held that once first revision petition has been dismissed, the second revision petition would not be maintainable and further that inherent powers cannot be ordinarily utilised when the second revision is expressly barred. More recently, in the case of Krishnan and another v. Krishnaveni and another, 1997(1) RCR(Crl.) 724 : AIR 1997 SC 987 , similar question had come up for hearing. It was held that inherent powers could only be utilised if there is failure of justice. In those cases, the High Court may interfere but reiterated that second revision is not maintainable after the dismissal of the first revision petition.
The position becomes clear. This is a second revision petition filed after the dismissal of the first revision petition. It must be held to be not maintainable and, in fact, specifically barred under subsection (3) of Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no ground to even convert it into a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because it is not a fit case to exercise inherent powers. There is no abuse of the process of the Court nor the interest of justice so require. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.