TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (6) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Order of the High Court, dated 23-1-1981 and made herein the records relating to Order No. 203/80 dated 17-9-1980 on the file of the 1st respondent comprise in the return of the respondents to the Writ made by the High Court, and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ramaswami for M/s. N. Ganapathy, M.I. Meerasahib and A. Thirumoorthy, Advocates for the petitioner, and of Mr. T. Somasundaram, Add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is concerned, on the discussion of the facts of the case, it came to the conclusion that he could not be penalised and the petitioner was acquitted. The decision of the Criminal Court was substantially on merits and on identical facts and charges. I am told that the acquittal of the petitioner held good at all relevant points of time. The second respondent disposed of the appeal on 21-11-1977 and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the Criminal Court was on merits and on identical facts and charges is tenable because as I could see from the copy of the judgment in the criminal case, there has been a relevant and appropriate consideration of the factual materials, which are identical and in respect of identical charges and the Criminal Court has categoric....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, it means that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and therefore did not merit any punishment. It would indeed be a strange predicament when in respect of the same offence, he should be punished, by one Tribunal on the footing that he was guilty of the offence and that he should be honourably acquitted by another Tribunal of the very same Offence. As primarily the Criminal Courts of the....