https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308553 Subsequent prosecution was treated as barred where the earlier and later cases arose from the same employment period, the same office, and the same core allegation of misappropriation through manipulation of the cash book and non-remittance of public funds. The analysis states that repeated prosecution on the same facts is prohibited by Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC when the factual matrix is not distinct. It further notes that, where a later trial is said to concern a distinct offence, prior State Government consent under Section 300(2) is required; no such consent was shown, so the convictions could not stand. en-us Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 03 Jul 2023 20:51:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308553 Subsequent prosecution was treated as barred where the earlier and later cases arose from the same employment period, the same office, and the same core allegation of misappropriation through manipulation of the cash book and non-remittance of public funds. The analysis states that repeated prosecution on the same facts is prohibited by Article 20(2) and Section 300 CrPC when the factual matrix is not distinct. It further notes that, where a later trial is said to concern a distinct offence, prior State Government consent under Section 300(2) is required; no such consent was shown, so the convictions could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Dec 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308553