M.G. ATTRI Vs. S.K. JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By virtue of this Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("the code"), the Petitioner M.G.Attri (Chief Enforcement Officer) seeks setting aside of the order dated 26.11.1998 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ("A.C.M.M.") in the Complaint Case No.75/1/1996 instituted by the Petitioner against the Respondent and one Mohd. Ameerudeen for an offence punishable under Section 8(1) read with Section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the FERA) whereby on an Application under Section 245 (2) of the Code, the Respondent was discharged on the ground that the complaint against him is groundless. By virtue of a Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Code, the Petitioner challenged the order dated 26.11.1998 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge ("the learned ASJ ). The Revision Petition came to be dismissed by the learned ASJ by an order dated 08.03.2007.

(2.) The impugned orders are challenged on the following grounds:-

(3.) There is no dispute about the proposition of law that a Magistrate or for that matter an ASJ does not enjoy any inherent powers as those conferred on a High Court under Section 482 of the Code. Admittedly, the Magistrate and the "ASJ do not have any power of review. In Adalat Prasad, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that against an order of summoning (in a summons case) the only remedy available, to an aggrieved accused, is the extraordinary remedy available under Section 482 of the Code and not by an Application to recall the summons or to seek discharge. The law laid down in Adalat Prasad was approved by a three Judge Bench decision in Subramanium Sethuraman, and the contention raised that Adalat Prasad required reconsideration, was rejected. Para 14 of the report of the Supreme Court in Subramanium Sethuraman is extracted hereunder:-