https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393756 A wildlife prosecution was not quashed where the complaint disclosed the accused's involvement in the body of the original complaint, a supplementary complaint was treated as permissible, and the complainant acted in official capacity with statutory authorization. The Court also found no illegality in taking cognizance against a person residing outside territorial limits, because the complainant was a public servant acting in discharge of official duties and Section 202 CrPC did not require a separate inquiry on those facts. Earlier Customs Act proceedings did not bar the wildlife case, as the offences were distinct. Prima facie material, including the accused's statement and banking records, was sufficient to refuse quashing at the threshold. en-us Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 23 Mar 2020 09:29:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393756 A wildlife prosecution was not quashed where the complaint disclosed the accused's involvement in the body of the original complaint, a supplementary complaint was treated as permissible, and the complainant acted in official capacity with statutory authorization. The Court also found no illegality in taking cognizance against a person residing outside territorial limits, because the complainant was a public servant acting in discharge of official duties and Section 202 CrPC did not require a separate inquiry on those facts. Earlier Customs Act proceedings did not bar the wildlife case, as the offences were distinct. Prima facie material, including the accused's statement and banking records, was sufficient to refuse quashing at the threshold. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 15 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=393756