Petitioner not an eligible assessee under s.144C(15)(b); draft and final assessments under s.144C(1)/s.143(3)/s.144B quashed and penalty show-cause no...
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 4830 
Join Channel 
