TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the subsequent FIR and prosecution were barred because they arose from the same general power of attorney and the same sales already the subject of an earlier prosecution ending in acquittal.
Analysis: The earlier FIR and the subsequent FIR both rested on the same alleged forged general power of attorney dated 02.05.1985 and the sales allegedly made in pursuance of it. The later complaint merely added offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, but that did not alter the basic factual foundation of the prosecution. The earlier acquittal remained undisputed, and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure barred a second trial on the same facts for the same offence or for any other offence that could have been charged on those facts. The concealment of the earlier acquittal and the repeated invocation of the same transaction rendered the later prosecution unsustainable.
Conclusion: The subsequent FIR and criminal proceedings were barred and liable to be quashed. The conclusion was in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The criminal prosecution founded on the same substratum could not be sustained after the earlier acquittal, and the impugned orders were set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a later criminal case is founded on the same transaction and factual substratum as an earlier case that ended in acquittal, Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars a second prosecution notwithstanding addition of further penal sections.
TaxTMI 
