B S AND CO Vs. NIRANJAN SUBUDHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Enforcement Directorate, through the Enforcement Officer, has filed complaint under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'FERA') and in terms of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange (Amendment) Act, 1999, against the petitioner herein. The allegation is that vide adjudication order dated 31.8.1989 passed by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, penalty of Rs.1,08,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner (accused in the said complaint), but in spite of the direction to pay/deposit the said penalty, the petitioner has not deposited the same within the stipulated period and till the filing of the complaint, i.e. until April 2002.

(2.) Section 57 of the FERA deals with prosecution of such persons who do not deposit the penalty after the adjudication orders and the same reads as under :-

(3.) On receiving the summoning orders passed agaisnt the petitioner, he filed application for discharge on the ground that in an appeal filed against the adjudication order, the Appellate Tribunal has passed the order granting stay of the penalty passed by the adjudicating authority and, therefore, in view of the stay, the petitioner could not be called upon to deposit any penalty and consequently complaint could not have been filed treating it as a default. This application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 25.11.2003 passed by the learned ACMM and in these circumstances the present petition is preferred under section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order and dismissal of the complaint. Before adverting to the issue raised, let me first take note of the background facts.