https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296739 Earlier directions to frame charges were recalled where prosecution materials could not be proved in evidence and the factual basis for continuation had changed. The Delhi HC treated its power to prevent miscarriage of justice as surviving the procedural bar on reviewing a final order, and held that orders made on a mistaken assumption about the availability of authenticated originals could be recalled. It further found that foreign photocopies were neither shown to be certified copies nor otherwise proved as admissible secondary evidence, so they could not sustain charges of conspiracy, cheating, bribery, or forgery. The proceedings were quashed and the accused discharged. en-us Tue, 31 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Aug 2021 11:37:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296739 Earlier directions to frame charges were recalled where prosecution materials could not be proved in evidence and the factual basis for continuation had changed. The Delhi HC treated its power to prevent miscarriage of justice as surviving the procedural bar on reviewing a final order, and held that orders made on a mistaken assumption about the availability of authenticated originals could be recalled. It further found that foreign photocopies were neither shown to be certified copies nor otherwise proved as admissible secondary evidence, so they could not sustain charges of conspiracy, cheating, bribery, or forgery. The proceedings were quashed and the accused discharged. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 31 May 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296739