1999 (3) TMI 98

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y are heard together and disposed of by this common order. 2. Crl. M.P. No. 2908 of 1996 and Crl. M.P. No. 3629 of 1996 are filed seeking stay of all further proceedings in C.C. No. 19/93 and C.C. No. 52/94 respectively on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad. The petitioners were charged that they have wrongly availed the benefits of Small Scale Industries Notification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the appeals preferred by the petitioners before the Tribunal were allowed holding that no offence is made out. 4. Now the point is whether the finding of the Tribunal has any bearing on the criminal case pending before the Special Judge for Economic Offences. On this point, Mr. M. Panduranga Rao, learned Counsel appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae brought to my notice the judgment of the Su .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the firm was genuine. On the basis of that finding, the Supreme Court held that the prosecution must be quashed. 6. In the cases on hand also, there is a finding of the Tribunal that no offence is made out. In this view of the matter, the prosecution against the petitioners in C.C. No. 19/93 and C.C. No. 52/94 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad is quashed. 7. Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X