https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92483 The HC dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Special Judge's refusal to discharge the anonymized applicant; the court held that regulatory/adjudicatory exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution because the adjudicating order lacked a detailed, clear declaration of innocence and contained adverse findings bearing on the applicant's role as CEO. Applying settled principles, the HC found prima facie material - inspection reports, forensic audit, exchange reports and account records - sufficient to raise strong suspicion of offences under s.24(1) read with s.27(1) of the SEBI Act and to satisfy the limited threshold at the s.227 CrPC stage; therefore charges may be framed and trial shall proceed. en-us Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:17 +0530 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92483 The HC dismissed the revision petition and upheld the Special Judge's refusal to discharge the anonymized applicant; the court held that regulatory/adjudicatory exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution because the adjudicating order lacked a detailed, clear declaration of innocence and contained adverse findings bearing on the applicant's role as CEO. Applying settled principles, the HC found prima facie material - inspection reports, forensic audit, exchange reports and account records - sufficient to raise strong suspicion of offences under s.24(1) read with s.27(1) of the SEBI Act and to satisfy the limited threshold at the s.227 CrPC stage; therefore charges may be framed and trial shall proceed. Highlights SEBI Sat, 13 Sep 2025 08:47:17 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=92483