https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84335 Extraordinary writ interference to quash criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage is justified only where a grave illegality or clear jurisdictional defect is shown; otherwise, objections should be raised before the trial court during evidence and trial. Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute depends on the place where the alleged offence occurred, not the accused's residence outside the local area. On those principles, the challenge to quash the pending prosecution failed and the jurisdictional objection to the Drugs Inspector was rejected, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 Jul 2011 12:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84335 Extraordinary writ interference to quash criminal proceedings at an interlocutory stage is justified only where a grave illegality or clear jurisdictional defect is shown; otherwise, objections should be raised before the trial court during evidence and trial. Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute depends on the place where the alleged offence occurred, not the accused's residence outside the local area. On those principles, the challenge to quash the pending prosecution failed and the jurisdictional objection to the Drugs Inspector was rejected, allowing the criminal proceedings to continue before the trial court. Case-Laws Central Excise Wed, 02 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=84335