ORDER (Oral)

1. The respondent in the first and second captioned petitions (the complainant) is the assessing authority in respect of the petitioner in the first and second captioned petitions (the accused), under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It appears to be an undisputed case that the petitioner had failed to submit his return of income-tax for assessment years (AY) 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, within the time stipulated for the purpose, under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). In the wake of this fact and certain subsequent notices, including under Section 142 (1) and 148 of IT Act, prosecutions were launched by filing of criminal complaints, each alleging offence punishable under Sections 276 CC of IT Act having been committed qua different assessment years by him, they including criminal complaint no. 42/4 (respecting AY 2003-04), no. 41/4 (respecting AY 2004-05) and no. 43/4 (respecting AY 2005-06). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) took cognizance on each of the said criminal complaints and issued process summoning him as accused. When the case reached the stage of consideration of the question of charge, in the wake of pre-charge evidence, the same was resisted. By separate orders passed in each case on 27.11.2015, the trial Magistrate repelled objections of the accused and ordered charge to be framed separately for each assessment year on the said complaint.

2. Orders framing charge were challenged by the accused in the court of Sessions by presenting petitions (Crl. Rev. 02/16, 01/16 and 03/16 respectively) which were decided by the revisional court by separate orders dated 14.05.2016.

3. In the complaints relating to AY 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, the resistance to the charge was repelled and the orders of the trial magistrate upheld. The third criminal revision petition i.e. CR 02/16 arising out of criminal complaint CC no. 42/4 pertaining to AY 2003-04, however, had a distinct fact-situation on the basis of which a slightly different nuanced argument had been raised by the accused which found favour with the revisional court. The said petition was allowed and the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaints were closed, the accused thereby being discharged.

4. The three petitions at hand invoke the inherent power and jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bring a further challenge to the order of the revisional court, in the wake of complaint relating to AY 2003-04 by the complainant (assessing authority) and in the case of latter two periods AY 2004-05 and 2005-06 by the accused (assessee).

5. In the context of complaints relating to AY 2004-05 and 2005-06, questions arose as to whether the petitioner having availed of the remedy of revision should be allowed to have recourse to the petition at hand as a substitute for virtually a second revisional challenge or scrutiny which is clearly barred under Section 397 (3) Cr.P.C.

6. This Court in an almost similar fact-situation, taking note of the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Krishnan Vs. Krishnaveni, (1997) 4 SCC 241; Rajinder Prasad Vs. Bashir, (2001) 8 SCC 522 and Kailash Verma vs. Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation & Anr., (2005) 2 SCC 571 and following similar view taken by a learned single Judge of this Court in Surender Kumar Jain vs. State & Anr., ILR (2012) 3 Del 99 in absence of a special case being made has earlier declined to interfere by the ruling (dated 03.07.2018) in Crl.M.C. 164/2018 Ajay Maini vs. The State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

7. Be that as it may, the contentions of the petitioner accused in those matters have still been considered to find out as to whether there has been a miscarriage of justice in the consistent view taken by the two courts below in the context of the said two complaints.

8. Section 139 of the IT Act creates an obligation on the part of every person whose total