S.K. BAHADUR Vs. DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in this petition by the Petitioner No. 1 Shri S.K. Bahadur and his wife Petitioner No. 2 Smt. Asha Bhatnagar is for the quashing of Complaint Cases titled J.C. Makhija, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v. S.K. Bahadur and J.C. Makhija, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Asha Bhatnagar both pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ('ACMM'), New Delhi under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA).

(2.) THE aforementioned complaints state that on 4 -12 -1984 the premises at D -1/153, Satya Marg, Chanakaya Puri, New Delhi under occupation of the Petitioners was searched by the Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI') and foreign currency of US $ 2,596 and U.K. Sterling pounds 1,220 and certain other incriminating documents were found and seized. It was alleged that Petitioner No. 1 who was at the relevant time working as Joint Secretary and Legal Adviser, Ministry of Commerce, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi had visited abroad in May 1984 and had acquired Japanese Yen 2,94,100 and Hong Kong $ 15,490 for purchases made abroad. It was stated in the complaint that under Section 8(1) FERA no person resident in India other than an authorized dealer in foreign exchange could acquire foreign exchange except with the special permission of the Reserve Bank of India ('RBI'). Since the acquisition of the aforementioned foreign currency by the petitioners contravened the provisions of Section 8(1) FERA, they were liable to be proceeded against under Section 56 FERA. Accordingly on 9 -2 -1987 the aforementioned complaints were filed against the petitioners.

(3.) IT is stated that nearly two and a half years after the raid took place and more than seven months after the filing of the above charge sheet, the aforementioned two complaints under Section 56 FERA were filed against the petitioners. The petitioners state that despite the expiry of 22 years since the filing of the two complaint cases, charges are yet to be framed. At the time of the filing of this petition on 10 -10 -2006, petitioner No. 1 was 77 years old. Petitioner No. 2 was 78 years old. At present they are 79 and 80 years respectively. It is submitted that since petitioner No. 1 is already facing trial in respect of the offence of possessing assets, including the foreign currency seized, disproportionate to his known sources of income, a parallel complaint under the FERA in the Court of the learned ACMM is not going to serve any purpose except causing harassment to the petitioners.