MUNNA LAL KHANDELWAL Vs. B HAZRA ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Munnal Lal KhandelwaI Jitender Kaira, Madhav Saran and Narendra Gupta have filed four separate petitions under Section 482, Cr.P.C. (Cri.M.(M.) Nos. 2884/99, 2972/99, 3092/99 & 3079/99). Since a common question of law is involved in the aforesaid petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order. Facts of the Cri.M.(M.) No. 2884/99

(2.) On 12.9.1993, the police intercepted a fiat car bearing registration No. PB-24- 2300 and apprehended Suram Singh and Deep Chand, who were travelling in the car. A third person named Rajinder Chorkha, who was also in the car, however, managed to escape. Search of the said car by the police resulted in the recovery of rupees fifty lacs in cash vide seizure memo dated 12.9.1993. Certain documents were also seized from the said Suram Singh and Deep Chand. Investigation into the matter was taken up by the Enforcement Directorate, under on receipt of information from the Police Authorities. On 17.9.1993 and 18.9.1993, petitioners' statements were recorded under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short "the Act";. On completion of the investigation, a complaint under Section 56 of the Act was filed against the petitioner for the alleged violation of Sections 9(l)(b) and 9(l)(d) read with Section 64(2) of the Act.

(3.) In the meanwhile, a show cause notice under Section 5(1) of the Act was also issued to the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate forviolation of the aforesaid offences and also for confiscation of the amount of rupees fifty lacs recovered from the aforesaid car. The petitioner contested the said adjudication proceedings and by . the Order No. DDE (APK)/ffl05/96 dated 6.9.1996 and the addendum dated 30.1.1997 to the said adjudication order, the petitioner was completely exonerated by the Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), New Delhi. After the said order, the petitioner filed an application before the Trial Court seeking his discharge from the proceedings which was disallowed vide order dated 1.7.1999 passed by ACMM, New Delhi. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner moved the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi by filig a revision petition which was also dismissed vide orders dated 12.8.1999 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in CrI.R. No. 22/99. Not satisfied with the dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. Facts of the Cri.M.(M.) No. 2972/99