KAMAL SURI Vs. DY DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Crpc)seeks the quashing of Criminal Complaint No. 262/1/2002 and 841/1/2002 filed by the respondent against the petitioner in the Court of the learned Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM), New Delhi under Section 56 of the Foreign exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and Sections 49 (3) and 49 (4) of the foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA ). The petitioner also seeks the quashing of an order dated 21. 1. 2006 passed by the learned ACMM whereby, after noticing that there were two criminal complaints on the same set of facts and for the same offences, it was directed that both should be tried jointly.

(2.) M/s. Sahil Trends is a proprietary firm of which the petitioner is the sole proprietor. In regard to certain exports made by it to Germany a Show Cause notice No. T-4-76-D-2006 dated 18. 9. 2001 was issued to the firm by the directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, the Respondent herein. It was alleged that the petitioner s firm had effected shipment of goods valued at US $ 77,67,356 under the cover of GR forms without any permission from the Reserve bank of India (RBI) in violation of Sections 18 (2) and (3) FERA read with a central Government Notification dated 1. 1. 1974. Admittedly, on the same set of facts and for the same alleged contravention a second Show Cause Notice No. T-4-87-D of 2002 dated 2. 5. 2002 was issued to the petitioner by the Respondent.

(3.) FOLLOWING the first show cause notice issued on 18. 9. 2001, the Respondent filed Criminal Complaint No. 262/1/2002 against the petitioner in the court of the learned ACMM, New Delhi on the same set of facts for proceeding against the petitioner under Section 56 FERA for the offences under Sections 18 (2) and 18 (3) FERA, the Central Government notifications dated 1. 1. 1974 and Sections 49 (3) and 49 (4) FEMA. On 16. 4. 2002 the learned MM took cognizance of the complaint. Since the complaint was filed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, the presence of the complainant and the recording of pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with. After going through the complaint, the learned MM issued a summoning order for the appearance of the petitioner on 25. 7. 2002.