https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761631 Materials showing that an executive director was a board member during the alleged offence were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case, so revisional interference to quash the criminal proceeding was not justified. The court held that the director's actual role, knowledge, consent, or participation could not be conclusively decided at the discharge stage, because those matters depended on evidence to be tested at trial. On that basis, the refusal of discharge was upheld and the revision failed. en-us Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761631 Materials showing that an executive director was a board member during the alleged offence were sufficient to disclose a prima facie case, so revisional interference to quash the criminal proceeding was not justified. The court held that the director's actual role, knowledge, consent, or participation could not be conclusively decided at the discharge stage, because those matters depended on evidence to be tested at trial. On that basis, the refusal of discharge was upheld and the revision failed. Case-Laws SEBI Tue, 12 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761631