https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192385 Payment of compensation under section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation did not have the same legal effect as compounding under section 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the Regulation only stopped further proceedings and did not declare the misconduct wiped out or treated as an acquittal. The respondent's conduct therefore remained relevant when assessing suitability for settlement, and the Board of Revenue was entitled to take it into account. The Board acted within jurisdiction in doing so, and the High Court had no basis under Article 226 to quash the order, as certiorari does not correct an intra-jurisdictional assessment of relevance or suitability. en-us Wed, 21 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 May 2017 13:18:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192385 Payment of compensation under section 62 of the Assam Forest Regulation did not have the same legal effect as compounding under section 345(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, because the Regulation only stopped further proceedings and did not declare the misconduct wiped out or treated as an acquittal. The respondent's conduct therefore remained relevant when assessing suitability for settlement, and the Board of Revenue was entitled to take it into account. The Board acted within jurisdiction in doing so, and the High Court had no basis under Article 226 to quash the order, as certiorari does not correct an intra-jurisdictional assessment of relevance or suitability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 21 Sep 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192385