https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759847 The Chhattisgarh HC held that the State FIR was not a barred second FIR because it covered a broader conspiracy involving illegal liquor commissions, unaccounted liquor, duplicate holograms and excise corruption, while the earlier Uttar Pradesh FIR was narrower and factually distinct. It further held that the Enforcement Directorate's disclosure under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was made before the Supreme Court's stay and remained lawful. On the money-laundering side, the Court found that an ECIR is an internal document and not equivalent to an FIR, the subsequent ECIR rested on a different predicate offence, and the arrest, remand orders and ongoing investigation disclosed no legal infirmity. The quashing challenges failed. en-us Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:34:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759847 The Chhattisgarh HC held that the State FIR was not a barred second FIR because it covered a broader conspiracy involving illegal liquor commissions, unaccounted liquor, duplicate holograms and excise corruption, while the earlier Uttar Pradesh FIR was narrower and factually distinct. It further held that the Enforcement Directorate's disclosure under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 was made before the Supreme Court's stay and remained lawful. On the money-laundering side, the Court found that an ECIR is an internal document and not equivalent to an FIR, the subsequent ECIR rested on a different predicate offence, and the arrest, remand orders and ongoing investigation disclosed no legal infirmity. The quashing challenges failed. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 20 Aug 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759847