https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192869 The criminal court's final finding on the genuineness of the raffle ticket bound the raffle authorities, so they could not reopen the same issue under Rule 36-h and reject the first petitioner's claim on a contrary basis. The first petitioner, having secured a final acquittal on forgery, was entitled to payment of the prize amount deposited in court. The second petitioner's claim was not conclusively established on the existing material, so a fresh determination under Rule 36-h was required, with reasons if the claim was again rejected. The administrative authority could not disregard final criminal findings, but could assess a claim afresh where genuineness remained unproved. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Jun 2017 18:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192869 The criminal court's final finding on the genuineness of the raffle ticket bound the raffle authorities, so they could not reopen the same issue under Rule 36-h and reject the first petitioner's claim on a contrary basis. The first petitioner, having secured a final acquittal on forgery, was entitled to payment of the prize amount deposited in court. The second petitioner's claim was not conclusively established on the existing material, so a fresh determination under Rule 36-h was required, with reasons if the claim was again rejected. The administrative authority could not disregard final criminal findings, but could assess a claim afresh where genuineness remained unproved. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192869