J N KHANNA Vs. R K RAWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Quashing of complaint under Section 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, read with sub-Section (3) and (4) of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and Opportunity Notice of 12th May, 2002 (Annexure P-3) against the officers of ANZ Grindlays Bank who had handled the transactions of Non Resident (External) Account by Dr. P.K. Ramakrishnan, is sought. The precise ground upon which quashing of the proceedings arising out of the criminal complaint in question is sought by petitioners is that neither of petitioners had consented, connived or neglected in performance of their official duties attracting criminal prosecution under the aforesaid Act.

(2.) At the hearing, it was asserted by petitioners' counsel that once the charges of consent and connivance have been dropped in adjudication proceedings, the criminal prosecution in which the standard of proof is much higher, cannot be permitted to continue. To assert so reliance was placed upon Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bangal and Anr., 2011 3 SCC 581.

(3.) It was vehemently asserted by petitioners' counsel that delay of 11 years in lodging the criminal prosecution on the allegations of contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by petitioners who were the officers of the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank caused serious prejudice to petitioners in defending themselves in these criminal proceedings as the operation of ANZ Grindlays Bank had been wound up in the year 2002 and, thus, petitioners' right to a speedy trial is violated. Reliance was further placed by petitioners' counsel upon a decision of this Court in Crl.M.C.No.2655/2006 Kamal Suri vs. Dy. Director, Enforcement Directorate decided on 11th January, 2008 to assert that continuation of criminal proceedings on identical facts cannot be permitted as in adjudication proceedings, petitioners were exonerated and so these criminal proceedings ought to be quashed.