<?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>2003 (2) TMI 327 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108412</link>
    <description>Prosecution under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is distinct from adjudication under section 51, so pending adjudicatory proceedings do not bar criminal proceedings under the Act. The court noted that section 56 operates without prejudice to any penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer, showing that prosecution may proceed independently of the administrative process. Discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also unavailable because evidence under section 244 had not yet been recorded and the statutory conditions for discharge were not met. The accused therefore remained liable to face the prosecution notwithstanding the pending adjudication.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Mar 2012 13:44:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145429" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 327 - HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108412</link>
      <description>Prosecution under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is distinct from adjudication under section 51, so pending adjudicatory proceedings do not bar criminal proceedings under the Act. The court noted that section 56 operates without prejudice to any penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer, showing that prosecution may proceed independently of the administrative process. Discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also unavailable because evidence under section 244 had not yet been recorded and the statutory conditions for discharge were not met. The accused therefore remained liable to face the prosecution notwithstanding the pending adjudication.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108412</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>