TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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 criminal prosecution for contravention of foreign exchange law could continue after the adjudicating authority had exonerated the accused on merits and whether the High Court could treat that adjudication as technical and uphold the continuation of the prosecution.
Analysis: The adjudicatory findings were based on examination of the statutory scheme, the nature of the transactions and the material placed before the authority, and therefore amounted to a decision on merits. The governing principle is that adjudication and criminal prosecution may proceed independently, but where the adjudication exonerates the person on merits on the same set of facts, continuation of the prosecution becomes impermissible. The High Court could not reappraise the merits of an unchallenged tribunal order and was bound to recognise that the exoneration was not merely technical. In the circumstances, the discharge ordered by the Magistrate was justified.
Conclusion: The prosecution could not be continued after exoneration on merits, and the order restoring discharge was warranted in favour of the appellants.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the orders of the High Court and the revisional court were set aside, and the discharge of the accused persons was restored.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the competent adjudicating authority has, on merits and on identical allegations, held that there is no contravention, criminal prosecution based on the same facts cannot be continued, as such continuation would amount to an abuse of process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
