https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441886 Section 482 CrPC is not barred merely because a revision remedy exists, and the inherent jurisdiction may still be exercised where interference is justified; the petition was therefore maintainable. On the merits, the complaint and sanction material did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner, as the admitted facts showed no direct involvement and no statutory basis for vicarious criminal liability. Section 138A of the Customs Act was not attracted on the facts, and the summoning order under Section 204 CrPC could not be sustained. The proceedings were quashed against the petitioner, while the case against the remaining accused continued. en-us Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2024 10:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441886 Section 482 CrPC is not barred merely because a revision remedy exists, and the inherent jurisdiction may still be exercised where interference is justified; the petition was therefore maintainable. On the merits, the complaint and sanction material did not disclose a prima facie case against the petitioner, as the admitted facts showed no direct involvement and no statutory basis for vicarious criminal liability. Section 138A of the Customs Act was not attracted on the facts, and the summoning order under Section 204 CrPC could not be sustained. The proceedings were quashed against the petitioner, while the case against the remaining accused continued. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 18 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=441886