https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191465 A later prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act was barred qua one accused because it arose from the same fraudulent export transactions, forged documents and wrongful DEPB benefits as an earlier CBI case that had already ended in conviction and sentence; Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC therefore prohibited a second prosecution. As to the other accused, the Court declined quashing because statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be assessed as trial evidence at the quashing stage, and the limitation objection under Section 468 CrPC was left to be raised before the trial court, especially since Section 135 carried a higher punishment. en-us Tue, 31 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Apr 2017 07:02:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191465 A later prosecution under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act was barred qua one accused because it arose from the same fraudulent export transactions, forged documents and wrongful DEPB benefits as an earlier CBI case that had already ended in conviction and sentence; Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC therefore prohibited a second prosecution. As to the other accused, the Court declined quashing because statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act could not be assessed as trial evidence at the quashing stage, and the limitation objection under Section 468 CrPC was left to be raised before the trial court, especially since Section 135 carried a higher punishment. Case-Laws Customs Tue, 31 May 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191465