<?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>2022 (12) TMI 1104 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431987</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court considered quashing of a criminal complaint where the complaint materials did not disclose a prima facie offence. It held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised when uncontroverted allegations and supporting material fail to establish an offence or show abuse of process. The alleged substance was not shown, on reliable material, to be exclusively a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; it was treated as a bulk food ingredient, and the pleaded dual-use exemption and existing wholesale drug licence undermined the prosecution case. An inordinate, unexplained delay in filing the complaint further weakened the prosecution and supported quashing, leading to termination of the proceedings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Dec 2022 09:08:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=699783" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (12) TMI 1104 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431987</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court considered quashing of a criminal complaint where the complaint materials did not disclose a prima facie offence. It held that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised when uncontroverted allegations and supporting material fail to establish an offence or show abuse of process. The alleged substance was not shown, on reliable material, to be exclusively a drug under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; it was treated as a bulk food ingredient, and the pleaded dual-use exemption and existing wholesale drug licence undermined the prosecution case. An inordinate, unexplained delay in filing the complaint further weakened the prosecution and supported quashing, leading to termination of the proceedings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=431987</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>