<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2010 (2) TMI 515 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78681</link>
    <description>Criminal proceedings under the Customs Act and Indian Penal Code were quashed where the allegations in the complaint and show cause notice were materially the same, and the petitioner had already been exonerated in adjudication on the same facts. The adjudication had ended in the petitioner&#039;s favour before the Tribunal, the Department allowed that order to attain finality, and no materially different material was shown to justify a separate criminal trial. The Court held that continuation of prosecution against a non-executive director in these circumstances would amount to undue harassment, and inherent jurisdiction could be used to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 11:53:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=116791" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 515 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78681</link>
      <description>Criminal proceedings under the Customs Act and Indian Penal Code were quashed where the allegations in the complaint and show cause notice were materially the same, and the petitioner had already been exonerated in adjudication on the same facts. The adjudication had ended in the petitioner&#039;s favour before the Tribunal, the Department allowed that order to attain finality, and no materially different material was shown to justify a separate criminal trial. The Court held that continuation of prosecution against a non-executive director in these circumstances would amount to undue harassment, and inherent jurisdiction could be used to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78681</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>