The petitioner Shri PN Bhattacharjee who is Income Tax Officer of Ward No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura has approached this Court under section 482 of CrPC seeking relief for quashing the order of discharge of the accused dated 13.3.1991 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala in Case No. CR 301 of 1989 and the revisional order dated 31.3. 1992 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala affirming the order of discharge. 2. The facts relevant to the determination of the points at issue are few and simple. On 25.8.1989 the present petitioner who is the Income Tax Officer of Ward No. 1, Agartala, West Tripura filed a complaint in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala against the respondent Shri Kamal Bhattacharjee alleging, inter alia, that the respondent who is an assessee of the Income Tax under PA No. 10-009 PV-7987 filed a false account of statement for the assessment year 1982-83 to evade income tax. It was alleged that the respondent as proprietor of Pioneer Trading Co. sold medicine by issuing bogus cash memos and as a distributor of Boroline of M/s GD Pharmaceuticals Limited, Calcutta he also sold Boroline at enhanced rate by issuing fictitious cash memos. It was also alleged that the respondent submitted the return of income tax for the assessment year 1982-83 on 21.10.82 showing his total income of Rs.38,000/-. The assessment for the year 1982-83 was completed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 29.3.85 at a total income of Rs.75,700/-. 3. In course of assessment proceeding it was discovered by the Income Tax Officer that the respondent assessee made extra profit by means of bogus cash memos. The petitioner, therefore, recast the trading account which resulted the addition of Rs. 24,315/- in the net profit for the assessment year 1982-83 which was finally reduced to Rs. 15.000/- in appeal. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The respondent, however, preferred appeal and exhausted other provisions as permissible by law. 24,315/- in the net profit for the assessment year 1982-83 which was finally reduced to Rs. 15.000/- in appeal. A penalty of Rs. 20,000/- was also passed by the Income Tax Officer under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act. The respondent, however, preferred appeal and exhausted other provisions as permissible by law. It was further alleged that the respondent deliberately concealed the particulars of his true and correct income with malafide intention to evade tax and delivered an account or statement which was false and which he knew and believed to be false and as such the respondent committed offence punishable udder section 276 C (i) and 277 of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, the petitioner after obtaining necessary sanction order from the authority presented the complaint as stated above in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, 4. Thereafter the case was transferred to the learned Judicial Magist­rate, First Class, (Mr. GC Kar) Agartala who received the case record on 25.8.1989 and the learned Magistrate by his order dated 28.8.89 took cognizance of the offence. Under section 276 (C) (1) (it) and under section 277 (ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the respondent Shri Kama! Bhattacharjee and issued summons to the respondent accused. The respon­dent appeared before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Agartala and he was admitted to bail and soon thereafter the respondent challenged the maintainability of the case by filing an application. Learned Judicial Magistrate, however, held by his order dated 27.2.90 that the case was maintainable and also observed that it was triable as warrant procedure case fixing the next date on 27.3.90 for evidence before charge. 5. On 27.3.90 the complainant filed a petition for issuing summons to the PWs and accordingly learned Magistrate also passed order for issuing summons to the witnesses. On 26.4.1990 learned Magistrate examined the complainant but as service report in respect of other witnesses were not returned he fixed the next date on 3.5.90 for PWs. But on this date also no witness turned up. So, learned Magistrate passed order for issuing fresh summons upon the PWs fixing the next date on 10.7.90. At this stage the case suffered a number of adjournments for various reasons such as, absence of accused, non-attendance of witnesses, absence of Presiding Officer etc. But on this date also no witness turned up. So, learned Magistrate passed order for issuing fresh summons upon the PWs fixing the next date on 10.7.90. At this stage the case suffered a number of adjournments for various reasons such as, absence of accused, non-attendance of witnesses, absence of Presiding Officer etc. However, on 15.1.91 cross-examination of complainant was concluded and learned Magistrate fixed the next date on 6.2.91 for evidence. But as the witnesses did not turn up in spite of having received the summons the comp­lainant filed a fresh application for issuing summons to his witnesses. Learned Magistrate rejected that prayer and fixed the case on 26.2.91 for discussion of charges. On 13.3.-1 learned Magistrate heard learned counsel of the parties about framing of charge and on this date learned Magistrate First Class held that the charge brought against the accused was groundless and with this finding he discharged the accused under the provision of section 245 sub­section (2) of CrPC. 6. Aggrieved by this order the present petitioner preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Learned Additi­onal Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala who autually heard the revision dismissed the revision by his order dated 31.3.1992. Hence this petition under section 482 of CrPC. 7. Mr. KN Bhattacharjee, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the learned Magistrate committed gross error of law in recording the order of discharge under the provision of sub- section (2) of section 245 of CrPC without examining all U\e witnesses who were once summoned by him. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that in an warrant procedure case once Magistrate takes cognizance of the case, it becomes his bounden duty to compel the attendance of the witnesses to record their evidence. But in the instant case although the complainant filed necessary requisites for summoning the witnesses and the learned Magistrate issued summons, the witnesses did not turn up in spite of having received the summons. So, in the circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have issued warrant to secure the presence of the witnesses but without following that procedure learned Magistrate threw the responsibility on the complainant to bring his witnesses. 8. So, in the circumstances, the learned Magistrate should have issued warrant to secure the presence of the witnesses but without following that procedure learned Magistrate threw the responsibility on the complainant to bring his witnesses. 8. The procedure laid down in sections 244-246 apply exclusively to the trial of any warrant case instituted otherwise than on a police report, eg on a private complaint or by the Court suo motu. Sub section (2) of section 244 which has been substituted for old sub section (2) reads : "The Magistrate may, on the application of the prosecution, issue a summons to any of its witnesses directing him to attend or to produce any document or other thing." 9. In the instant case it is clear from the order sheets of the learned Magistrate that the complainant filed necessary application for issuing summons to his witnesses and learned Magistrate also issued the summons. The summons were also served upon some of the witnesses but the witnesses did not turn up on certain grounds. Apart from this the order dated 17.7.90 shows that on this date the complainant was present with one witness namely, Jaladinu Das. But on this date learned Magistrate did not examine the witness. No reason has been assigned as to why the learned Magistrate did not examine the witness. So, in view of the aforesaid provision of law it is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that where the complainant submitted necessary application for issuing summons to his witnesses and this being a warrant case, the Court must exhaust its power to secure attendance of the witnesses as it is also the responsibility of the Court to see that justice is done by a fair and speedy trial. Mr. Bhattacharjee, therefore, submits that the order of discharge which was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was, without just and sufficient ground and that it was contrary to law and against public interest. 10. But Mr. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the word 'may' occurring in sub-section (2) of section 244 of CrPC indicates that it is the discretion of the Court to issue summons to the witnesses. His precise submission is that Magistrate can also ignore issuing summons to witnesses. 10. But Mr. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the word 'may' occurring in sub-section (2) of section 244 of CrPC indicates that it is the discretion of the Court to issue summons to the witnesses. His precise submission is that Magistrate can also ignore issuing summons to witnesses. I am, however, unable to accept this contention as in the instant case the order sheets clearly show that learned Magistrate issued summons to the witnesses and summons were also served upon some of the witnesses. The procedure laid down under sections 244-246 of CrPC does not provide or contemplate an order of discharge merely because the witnesses did not turn up pursuant to the summons. 11. In the instant case the order dated 28.8.89 shows that learned Magistrate after perusal of the complaint took cognizance of the offence. It means that learned Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the offence complained of was committed by the accused. I am, therefore, of opinion that where the complainant made successive prayers for issuing summons to his witnesses it is not only the bounden duty of the Magistrate to issue summons to the witnesses but it is also his bounden duty to exhaust all his powers for securing the attendance of the witnesses for disposal of the case according to law. The Magistrate has to exhaust all his powers to secure the attendance of the witnesses who were summoned before he makes his mind to dismiss the case. 12. The next contention urged by Mr. Das is that the offence complained of was committed in respect of the assessment year 1982-83 and the complaint being filed on 25.8.89, it is barred under the provisions of section 468 of CrPC. But the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that section 468 of CrPC is not applicable to the present case as the offence complained of falls under the Income Tax Act. He drew my attention to the amending Act, namely, the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation), Act, 1974. It is clear from this amended Act that nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will apply to any offence, punishable under any of the enactments specified in the Schedule. In the Schedule the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes under Item No. 2. It is clear from this amended Act that nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 will apply to any offence, punishable under any of the enactments specified in the Schedule. In the Schedule the Income Tax Act, 1961 comes under Item No. 2. It is, therefore, clear that offence complained of is not covered by section 468 of CrPC. 13. The third contention of Mr. Das is that this petition being a second revision this Court has no power to entertain it in exercise of its power under section 482 of CrPC. In support of his contention Mr. Das has referred to a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Dharampal & others vs. Smti Ramshri & others reported in AIR 1993 Supreme Court 1361. What happened in that case was that a dispute arose with regard to possession of a property between the appellants and the respondents. Respondent Smti Ramshri filed an application under section 145 of CrPC before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadabad in which she claimed ownership of the suit property. On 31st May, 1976, the learned Magistrate passed a preliminary order under section 145 of the Code and thereafter on 22nd April, 1977 made an order of attachment under section 146 directing that the attachment would continue till the competent civil Court determined the rights of the parties with regard to the said property. Against that order a revision was filed. Sessions Judge stayed the order of Magistrate. But before the interim stay was communicated, the attachment was already effected. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, passed another interim order directing the police to restore the possession of the property to the appellants from whom allegedly the possession of the property was taken. The possession was restored and the said revision application was dismissed. So, the attachment order revived but the learned Magistrate passed a fresh order of attachment. 14. Against that order, once more a revision was preferred and the learned Sessions Judge stayed the fresh order of attachment passed by the Magistrate. Thereafter, the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent and her husband, and in that claimed an interim injunction against them. The trial Court dismissed the prayer for interim injunction. Against the order of dismissal, an appeal was filed. Appellate Court allowed the appeal and issued an interim injunction. Thereafter, the appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondent and her husband, and in that claimed an interim injunction against them. The trial Court dismissed the prayer for interim injunction. Against the order of dismissal, an appeal was filed. Appellate Court allowed the appeal and issued an interim injunction. Thereafter Criminal Revision No. 19 of 1S78 preferred by the appellant was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. Again, although the order of attachment stood revived and the order of interim injunction by the civil Court still continued, the Magistrate on 25th July, 1978 passed another order attaching the property. Against this order of attachment passed by the Magistrate, a revision was filed by the appellants before the Sessions Judge who by his order dated 26th July, ) 978 stayed the order of attachment issued on 25th July, 1978 upto 10th August, 1978. 15. On 26th July, 1978 the appellant filed an application before the Magistrate for withdrawal of attachment on the ground that there was no apprehension of a breach of the peace. On this application, on 17th October 1978, the Magistrate ordered withdrawal of attachment. Against this order, the first respondent filed revision before the Sessions Judge who dismissed the same on 14th May, 1979. Respondent No. 1 therefore, preferred an application under section 482 of CrFC. 16. It was observed by their Lordships that there was no doubt that the learned Magistrate had committed an error in passing the subsequent orders of attachment when the first attachment was never finally vacated and had revived the moment the revision application filed against it was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge. It was also observed by their Lordships that the learned Sessions Judge had also committed a patent mistake in entertaining revision application against the fresh orders of attachment and granting interim stays when he had dismissed revision application against the order of attachment earlier. 17. It would, therefore, be apparent from the above that the facts of that case are quite distinguishable from the present one. In the instant case learned Magistrate issued summons to the witnesses and some of the witnesses received the summons but they did not come to the Court. That apart it would also appear from the order sheets dated 20.7.90 that on that date the complainant was present with one witness, namely, Jaladindu Das. In the instant case learned Magistrate issued summons to the witnesses and some of the witnesses received the summons but they did not come to the Court. That apart it would also appear from the order sheets dated 20.7.90 that on that date the complainant was present with one witness, namely, Jaladindu Das. The learned Magistrate did not examine the witness on that date. So, on facts the decision relied on by Mr. Das is not applicable to the present case. 18. That the order of discharge was passed without any trial is not disputed. I have already stated above that taking cognizance of a case means that the Magistrate was prima facie satisfied that the offence complained was committed and in such a situation the Magistrate has no alternative other than to exhaust his powers to secure the attendance of the witnesses as they were summoned on the prayer of the complainant. 19. Section 482 of CrPC envisages three circumstances in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised, namely : (i) to give effect to any order under this Code; di) to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, and (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It would be manifestly clear from the order sheets of the Court of learned Magistrate that upon the prayer of the complainant he issued summons to the witnesses and that some of the witnesses also received the summons but they did not appear before the Court. Further it would appear from the order dated 10.7.90 of the Court of learned Magistrate, First Class that complainant was present with one of his witnesses, namely, Jaladinu Das. But on that date learned Magistrate did not examine the witness and he also did not assign any reason why he did not examine the witness on that date. So, under the circumstances it was the bounden duty of the Magistrate to secure the attendance of the witnesses even by coercive method for a just decision of the case. 20. In the result, this petition is allowed. The orders impugned are set aside and the case is remanded to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura for disposal according to law. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to dispose of the case with expedition preferably within a period of three months. Records be sent to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala immediately.