https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271774 Exoneration in customs adjudication did not bar the connected criminal prosecution because the adjudicatory finding was not treated as a clear merits-based determination of innocence. The Court noted that the respondent had not personally participated, material statements had been overlooked, and the assumption that two persons bore the same name was incorrect. As the adjudication and criminal proceedings were distinct, quashing under Section 482 CrPC was unwarranted. The High Court's quashing order was set aside and the criminal complaint was directed to continue in accordance with law. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 11 Sep 2025 15:04:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271774 Exoneration in customs adjudication did not bar the connected criminal prosecution because the adjudicatory finding was not treated as a clear merits-based determination of innocence. The Court noted that the respondent had not personally participated, material statements had been overlooked, and the assumption that two persons bore the same name was incorrect. As the adjudication and criminal proceedings were distinct, quashing under Section 482 CrPC was unwarranted. The High Court's quashing order was set aside and the criminal complaint was directed to continue in accordance with law. Case-Laws Customs Mon, 15 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271774