P PHILIP Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated July 1, 1975, of the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant. It raises questions with regard to the scope and interpretation, inter alia of Section 399 (3) and 484 (2) (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the new Code). The facts are these:

(2.) The appellant herein was accused No. 2 in that complaint. By an application he raised two objections to the maintainability of the complaint and prayed for its dismissal: First, the opportunity as required under the proviso to Sec. 23 (3) of the Act was not given to the accused for showing that he had permission from the Reserve Bank of India for doing the alleged acts. Second, that the complainant did not comply with the conditions in the proviso to Section 23D (1) of the Act, inasmuch as there was no additional material before him to come to the conclusion that the penalty which he is empowered to impose under Sec. 23, would not be adequate and that consequently, it was necessary to file a complaint in Court.

(3.) By an order dated September 5, 1973, the trial Court dismissed the application holding inter alia "that the points raised here will be considered after recording the evidence". On the same day, against this order dated September 5, 1973, accused No.2 (P. Philip) filed Cr. Revision Petition No.27 of 1973 under S.435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (hereinafter called the old Code) before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who dismissed the same by an order, dated August 6, 1974. Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, P. Philip preferred Cr. Revision Petition No. 393 of 1974 to the High Court. This Revision was heard by a Division Bench along with two other Revisions (Cr. Rev. Petns. Nos. 409 and 411 of 1974) and dismissed, without going into the merits, on the ground that it was not maintainable in view of Section 399 (3) of the new Code.