8 Jul 2022
The High Court found the trial judge erred in granting an absolute acquittal and discharge because the prosecution had demonstrated good grounds (need to obtain further evidence from LAZADA and telecoms) and a clear intention to continue prosecution; therefore the A&D was set aside and replaced with a DNAA for all 34 charges.
8 Jul 2022
The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the Sessions Judge erred in directing an acquittal and discharge because the prosecution had demonstrated good grounds and a clear intention to continue prosecution after further targeted investigations (Lazada and telecommunication records), and delays were attributable to COVID restrictions and judicial changes rather than solely to the prosecution; accordingly the A&D was set aside and substituted with DNAA under section 254.
8 Jul 2022
The High Court allowed the prosecution's appeal, finding the Sessions Court wrongly exercised its discretion by ordering an acquittal and discharge; given the prosecution's clear intention to resume charges after further investigatory steps (with Lazada and telco) and delay attributable to COVID restrictions and judge changes, there were good grounds to order a discharge not amounting to acquittal under section 254 CPC for all 34 charges.