https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190456 In a disproportionate-assets prosecution, the Court declined to quash the second case summons under inherent jurisdiction because foundational facts had not yet been tested and disputed factual questions had to be resolved at trial. It also refused to decide, at the threshold, whether the later FIR and charge sheet arose from the same transaction as the earlier case, holding that such matters required evidence. However, the Court held that material obtained under Letters Rogatory and an express undertaking for use in a specified proceeding could not be diverted to support a separate prosecution, and directed transfer of the later records to the Designated Court for appropriate action in law. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Feb 2017 13:21:42 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190456 In a disproportionate-assets prosecution, the Court declined to quash the second case summons under inherent jurisdiction because foundational facts had not yet been tested and disputed factual questions had to be resolved at trial. It also refused to decide, at the threshold, whether the later FIR and charge sheet arose from the same transaction as the earlier case, holding that such matters required evidence. However, the Court held that material obtained under Letters Rogatory and an express undertaking for use in a specified proceeding could not be diverted to support a separate prosecution, and directed transfer of the later records to the Designated Court for appropriate action in law. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 10 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190456