RAVI SINGHAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After remaining un-successful before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (ASJ) New Delhi, the petitioner has approached this Court for grant of bail.

(2.) The brief facts appearing for the prosecution of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA for short) are that during the course of enquiries under FERA, the Department came to know that the petitioner was collecting payments in India on behalf of one Keith Fair Brother (Keith for short) of Eastern Suburbs Ltd. of United Kingdom and had been receiving communications in this regard from him. He introduced him to M/s U.K-Paints Industries, New Delhi and received payments in the form of drafts on behalf of Eastern Suburbs from U.K.Paints and handed over the same to Keith. It is further alleged that there are four drafts dated 12.10.1991 of Punjab & Sind Bank New Delhi favouring Eastern Suburbs Ltd. for a total amount of Rs.36,96,443.00 and one draft of the same date of State Bank of India, New Delhi favouring the same company for Rs.47,39,500.00 . These drafts were deposited in Standard Chartered Bank, Manchester who sent the same from Manchester to Punjab & Sind Bank and State Bank of India, both at Madras with advice to remit the proceeds in Standard Chartered Bank, Bombay for onward credit to the account of its. Manchester Branch. The proceeds after collection from Delhi Bankers were accordingly credited in the VOSTRO account of Standard Chartered Bank, Manchester. During further enquiries it was also revealed that the aforesaid drafts had been purchased by U.K.Paints. The department interrogated K.S.Dhingra, President, G.S.Dhingra, Vice Presint and Prem Narain Kapoor, Director of U.K.Paints in February,1993 and recorded their statements wherein they stated that the petitioner bad brought Keith to them and told them that Keith could provide export orders from Russia in case commission is paid to Keith. They agreed on certain terms and conditions as follows:-

(3.) The aforesaid five drafts were the amount of commission for Keith, which were handed over to the petitioner by U.K. Paints. Some more documents were collected from U.K.Paints which, according to the prosecution, make mention of these drafts having been received by the petitioner. Thereafter the business and the residential premises of the petitioner were subjected to search on 15.2.93. Some incriminating documents were allegedly recovered from his business premises. Summons were issued under Section 40 of the FERA to the petitioner for 17 February,1993 but he was reported to be abroad. The petitioner appeared before the Enforcement Officer on 13 April,1993. Perusal of his passport showed that he came to India on 31 March,1993 on a passport other than the one on which he travelled from India. It was also found from the passport that he obtained visa for U.K. at Russia. Despile a RED-ALERT he had crossed the airport. Statement of the petitioner was recorded wherein he is alleged to have stated that he introduced Keith to U.K.Paints and further that he received the aforesaid drafts on behalf of Keith and handed over the same to him. Passport of the petitioner further indicated that he had gone abroad immediately after 12 October 1991, the date on which he had received the drafts. Therefore, according to the case of the department, the petitioner by .receiving payments under instructions from and on behalf of Keith, aperson resident out side India and by giving the same to him had violated the provisions of Section 9 of the FERA. He was arrested on 13.4.1993 and produced before the Duty Magistrate on 14.4.1993. Simultaneously an application for interim bail was moved on behalf of the petitioner before the Duty Magistrate who directed that the application be put up before the court concerned, i.e. the court of ACMM, New Delhi on 15.4.1993 and till then he remanded him to judicial custody. It further appears that thereafter another application was moved before the duty Magistrate praying that the bail application may be directed to be heard on the same day because the petitioner was suffering from chest pain. The application thereafter was heard by the ACMM on the same day with consent of Sh. S.P. Ahluwalia, PP for the Enforcement Directorate and Sh.P.K.Rai, Assistant Director. The ACMM after hearing the parties directed on that date that the petitioner may be admitted to Sumit Clinic, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi under judicial custody immediately and be produced on 15 April 1993 at 2.00 P.M. when his bail application will be heard on merits. By a detailed order dated 19.4.1993 the prayer for interim bail on medical ground was declined because, according to learned ACMM the petitioner himself admitted having taken away the five drafts of the total value of more than Rs.84 lacs and handing over the same to Keith, and further that the petitioner bad gone abroad more than 30 times during the last 25 months and if he was actually keeping indifferent health there was no reason for him to have gone abroad so frequently. So taking into consideration the gravity of the offence, the interim bail was declined. Thereafter prayer for regular bail was also declined by learned ACMM vide order dated 21.4.93. The petitioner then approached the learned ASJ who also vide order dated 28 April 1993 showed reluctance to grant of bail and rejected the application.