https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218068 Prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act was not barred by double jeopardy where the earlier theft conviction arose from a separate complaint and distinct factual and legal premises. The customs case concerned unauthorized possession and dealing in foreign-origin gold biscuits liable to confiscation, which had not been determined in the prior proceeding. The complaint also disclosed a prima facie offence through recovery of foreign-marked gold biscuits and the petitioner's statement. Issues about lawful import and confiscability were held fit for trial, and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was not to be used to quash the prosecution at the threshold. en-us Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 31 May 2013 15:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218068 Prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act was not barred by double jeopardy where the earlier theft conviction arose from a separate complaint and distinct factual and legal premises. The customs case concerned unauthorized possession and dealing in foreign-origin gold biscuits liable to confiscation, which had not been determined in the prior proceeding. The complaint also disclosed a prima facie offence through recovery of foreign-marked gold biscuits and the petitioner's statement. Issues about lawful import and confiscability were held fit for trial, and inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC was not to be used to quash the prosecution at the threshold. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=218068