https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46566 Long pendency of a criminal proceeding and alleged harassment did not justify quashing the charge once the accused had been arraigned to face trial. Exoneration in departmental adjudication did not bar prosecution under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, because the penal provisions operated independently of confiscation and adjudication proceedings. The Court held that civil adjudication was not equivalent to an offence for article 20(2) of the Constitution, so the double jeopardy plea failed. The trial was therefore permitted to proceed. en-us Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:19:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46566 Long pendency of a criminal proceeding and alleged harassment did not justify quashing the charge once the accused had been arraigned to face trial. Exoneration in departmental adjudication did not bar prosecution under the Customs Act and the Gold (Control) Act, because the penal provisions operated independently of confiscation and adjudication proceedings. The Court held that civil adjudication was not equivalent to an offence for article 20(2) of the Constitution, so the double jeopardy plea failed. The trial was therefore permitted to proceed. Case-Laws Central Excise Tue, 07 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=46566