https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469554 A challenge to criminal prosecution based on alleged mechanical sanction was rejected because the sanctioning authority's competence was not disputed and objections such as non-application of mind are ordinarily matters for trial, not for quashing at the pre-trial stage. The Court also refused to interfere on merits, noting that earlier challenge orders had attained finality. Delay in trial did not justify termination of proceedings in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, and departmental exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore not exercised, and the case was permitted to proceed to trial. en-us Thu, 13 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 16:45:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469554 A challenge to criminal prosecution based on alleged mechanical sanction was rejected because the sanctioning authority's competence was not disputed and objections such as non-application of mind are ordinarily matters for trial, not for quashing at the pre-trial stage. The Court also refused to interfere on merits, noting that earlier challenge orders had attained finality. Delay in trial did not justify termination of proceedings in the absence of demonstrated prejudice, and departmental exoneration did not bar criminal prosecution. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore not exercised, and the case was permitted to proceed to trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469554