Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
The HC dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Special Judge's refusal to discharge the anonymized applicant; the court held that regulatory/adjudicatory exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution because the adjudicating order lacked a detailed, clear declaration of innocence and contained adverse findings bearing on the applicant's role as CEO. Applying settled principles, the HC found prima facie material - inspection reports, forensic audit, exchange reports and account records - sufficient to raise strong suspicion of offences under s.24(1) read with s.27(1) of the SEBI Act and to satisfy the limited threshold at the s.227 CrPC stage; therefore charges may be framed and trial shall proceed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.