ARJUN AMLA Vs. ENFORCEMENT DIRETORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the petitioner is aggrieved from an order passed by the learned ACMM dated 05. 03. 2007 passed in CC No. 763/01 which is a complaint filed by the respondent against Esam Trading Company Limited and three others i. e. Abhishek Verma, Sandeep Puri and M. A. Khan on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant that those persons had violated provisions of Section 8 (1), 8 (2), 8 (3), 8 (4), 9 (l) (a), 9 (l) (I) (i), 18 (2), 18 (3) read with sub-Section (3) of Section 49 of Foreign Exchange management Act, 1999.

(2.) THE name of the present petitioner was not added as an accused in the complaint though his name appeared in paragraph 23 and 35 of the complaint where some allegations are made against the petitioner in helping abhishek Verma in procuring some foreign exchange on a premium. However, the fact remains that he was not implicated as an accused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that in fact a notice was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why he should not be prosecuted. After taking his reply on record the Enforcement Directorate was satisfied that it was not a case where he should also be prosecuted along with other accused persons and that is how his name was not added as an accused in the complaint but inadvertently certain references were there qua him in the complaint probably which was prepared before the receipt of the reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner. It is also fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate that the petitioner was also exonerated in the adjudicatory proceeding as no penalty has been imposed upon him for having violated any of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.