https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300930 Recusal was rejected because the alleged relationship with the Attorney General did not create an objectively justified apprehension of bias, and the objection was raised belatedly. The Court held that the second preliminary enquiry and ensuing regular case were not barred as a second proceeding on the same facts because the first enquiry did not culminate in a final criminal case and the later disproportionate-assets enquiry rested on a distinct factual foundation. Delhi had territorial jurisdiction because part of the alleged offence arose there, while State consent under the DSPE Act was relevant to investigative acts within Himachal Pradesh but did not invalidate registration at Delhi. Pending income-tax proceedings, alleged CBI Manual breaches, and unsupported mala fides did not justify quashing. en-us Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Mar 2022 08:55:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300930 Recusal was rejected because the alleged relationship with the Attorney General did not create an objectively justified apprehension of bias, and the objection was raised belatedly. The Court held that the second preliminary enquiry and ensuing regular case were not barred as a second proceeding on the same facts because the first enquiry did not culminate in a final criminal case and the later disproportionate-assets enquiry rested on a distinct factual foundation. Delhi had territorial jurisdiction because part of the alleged offence arose there, while State consent under the DSPE Act was relevant to investigative acts within Himachal Pradesh but did not invalidate registration at Delhi. Pending income-tax proceedings, alleged CBI Manual breaches, and unsupported mala fides did not justify quashing. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300930