SURENDRA KUMAR JAIN Vs. M G ATTRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 3.5.91 the resident of the petitioner was raided and inter alia the following currency was ceased: US 250 (Travellers' cheque) US 593, Foreign currency U.K. Pounds 300 D.M. (German Currency) 2,700 F.F. 300 H.K. Dollars 50 One note of Thai Bhat 2 Chinese currency notes of denomination of 10 each

(2.) It was revealed during investigation that the currency belonged to the petitioner No.1 but had been handed over to the petitioner No.2 for safe keeping. The Directorate of Enforcement after completion of the investigation filed a complaint u/s 61(2) (ii) read with Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA) 1973. The petitioners set up the circular No.1/92 to plead before the learned ACMM, New Delhi that the prosecution was incompetent. The learned ACMM accepted the objection raised by the petitioner and discharged them. The learned Court of Sessions however accepted the revision from that order and directed the ACMM to dispose of the complaint according to law. The present revision petition seeks to challenge this order of Sessions dated 7th May, 2001. Before proceeding further it is necessary to see the circular itself. The circular reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_145_ILRDLH14_2005Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) It is contended that the value of currency seized is below the minimum amount mentioned in this circular and therefore the Enforcement Directorate which is bound by the circular could not have launched prosecution against the the petitioners. The respondents seriously dispute this proposition and submit that the circular has no binding force and even according to this circular the prosecution could be launched against the petitioners who are habitual offenders.