<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (5) TMI 1147 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194087</link>
    <description>Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects an accused only where the earlier conviction or acquittal followed a lawful trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. In NDPS prosecutions, competence includes compliance with the mandatory trial procedure applicable to the Special Court as a Court of Session. Where the earlier proceeding was conducted in complete departure from the prescribed procedure, it was treated as lacking jurisdiction, and the acquittal did not attract the bar against retrial under Section 300. The ruling therefore clarifies that procedural illegality in the first trial can prevent reliance on double jeopardy protection.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Aug 2017 09:40:57 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=487256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 1147 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194087</link>
      <description>Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure protects an accused only where the earlier conviction or acquittal followed a lawful trial before a court of competent jurisdiction. In NDPS prosecutions, competence includes compliance with the mandatory trial procedure applicable to the Special Court as a Court of Session. Where the earlier proceeding was conducted in complete departure from the prescribed procedure, it was treated as lacking jurisdiction, and the acquittal did not attract the bar against retrial under Section 300. The ruling therefore clarifies that procedural illegality in the first trial can prevent reliance on double jeopardy protection.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194087</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>