VIJAY MALLYA Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21st May, 2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.554 of 2001.

(2.) Brief facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that the appellant was summoned by the Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ("the Act") with his passport and correspondence Criminal Appeal No.1406 of 2009 relating to a transaction with Flavio Briatore of M/s. Benetton Formula Ltd., London, to which the appellant, as Chairman of United Breweries Ltd., was a party. Allegation against the appellant was that he entered into an agreement dated 1st December, 1995 with the earlier mentioned English Company for advertisement of 'Kingfisher' brand name on racing cars during Formula-I World Championships for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 providing for fee payable. Requisite permission of the Reserve Bank of India was not taken which was in violation of provisions of Sections 47(1) & (2), 9(1)(c) and 8(1) of the Act. Approval was later sought from Finance Ministry for payment on 19th June, 1996, which was rejected on 4th February, 1999. Since the appellant failed to appear in response to summons issued more than once, a complaint dated 8th March, 2000 under Section 56 of the Act was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The trial court after considering the material on record summoned the appellant and framed charge against him under Section 56 of the Act.

(3.) The appellant challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 9th August, 2001 in above Criminal Complaint No.16/1 of 2000 and also sought quashing of proceedings in the said complaint before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.554 of 2001 on the ground that willful default of the appellant could not have been inferred and that there was non-application of mind in the issuance of summons as well as in framing the charge which was in violation of procedure laid down under Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The charge related to failure of the appellant to appear on four occasions, i.e., 27th September, 1999, 8th November,1999, 26th November, 1999 and 3rd January, 2000. In respect of first date, it was submitted that the trial court itself accepted that the service of summons was after the time for appearance indicated in the summons. In respect of second and third dates, the appellant had responded and informed about his inability to appear and for the last date, summons was not as per procedure, i.e., by registered post. It was submitted that composite charge was against Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code.