https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19669 The bar against a second trial was not made out because the earlier proceeding ended in discharge after withdrawal of the complaint, and the later prosecution rested on a different factual basis as to the demand draft date and particulars; section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore did not justify interference with the acquittal. The prosecution also failed to prove the alleged suppression of receipts and falsification of accounts beyond reasonable doubt, and the revisional court found no material irregularity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence. The acquittal was upheld and the criminal revision cases were dismissed. en-us Sat, 19 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2009 17:30:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19669 The bar against a second trial was not made out because the earlier proceeding ended in discharge after withdrawal of the complaint, and the later prosecution rested on a different factual basis as to the demand draft date and particulars; section 300(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore did not justify interference with the acquittal. The prosecution also failed to prove the alleged suppression of receipts and falsification of accounts beyond reasonable doubt, and the revisional court found no material irregularity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence. The acquittal was upheld and the criminal revision cases were dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 19 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19669