Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
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.
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.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
