https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438850 Delay in a customs prosecution did not, by itself, justify quashing on Article 21 speedy trial grounds. The HC held that the accused must show material prejudice to personal liberty or that continued pendency amounts to abuse of process; mere lapse of time was insufficient where the petitioners had not demonstrated substantial infringement of daily life and the final report contained sufficient materials to proceed. The Court distinguished earlier delay precedent on the facts and refused to quash the criminal proceeding. en-us Thu, 08 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Feb 2024 13:09:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438850 Delay in a customs prosecution did not, by itself, justify quashing on Article 21 speedy trial grounds. The HC held that the accused must show material prejudice to personal liberty or that continued pendency amounts to abuse of process; mere lapse of time was insufficient where the petitioners had not demonstrated substantial infringement of daily life and the final report contained sufficient materials to proceed. The Court distinguished earlier delay precedent on the facts and refused to quash the criminal proceeding. Case-Laws Customs Thu, 08 Jun 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=438850