https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469689 Criminal prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act was quashed after confiscation proceedings under Section 6(A)(2) had already exonerated the company on merits for the same alleged breach of licensing orders and government circulars. The High Court noted that the allegations in both proceedings were identical, and the competent authority had given a reasoned finding that the licensing orders did not apply and the seized commodity was liable to be released. In that context, the difference between adjudication on preponderance of probability and criminal trial beyond reasonable doubt did not save the prosecution. Continuation of the FIR-based case was treated as abuse of process and the criminal case was rightly quashed. en-us Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Jun 2026 16:14:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469689 Criminal prosecution under the Essential Commodities Act was quashed after confiscation proceedings under Section 6(A)(2) had already exonerated the company on merits for the same alleged breach of licensing orders and government circulars. The High Court noted that the allegations in both proceedings were identical, and the competent authority had given a reasoned finding that the licensing orders did not apply and the seized commodity was liable to be released. In that context, the difference between adjudication on preponderance of probability and criminal trial beyond reasonable doubt did not save the prosecution. Continuation of the FIR-based case was treated as abuse of process and the criminal case was rightly quashed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=469689