SAMARUDDIN Vs. ASST DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful petitioner is the appellant in this appeal. THE Original Petition was filed for the following reliefs: (a)to direct the first respondent to conduct investigation, enquiry and such other proceeding under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and to charge and prosecute respondents 4 and 5 for violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act; (b)to direct the first respondent to recover the illegally converted 95,000 Riyals which had arrived in India through unknown sources and reached the bank accounts of 5th respondent and to give the same to the petitioner and also to initiate prosecution and adjudication proceedings as provided under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act against respondents 4 and 5; (c) to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to conduct investigation, to complete the same and to file the charge report before the concerned Magistrate Court on the basis of the complaint filed by the petitioner against respondents 4 and 5 and also to arrest them and also to recover the amounts including the converted properties from respondents 4 and 5 under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also to make arrangements for giving the same to the petitioner; and (d) to compel the first respondent to consider and dispose of Ext. P5 petition.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are as follows : THE appellant and respondents 4 and 5 are related to each other. THE appellant was working as a Salesman at Damam in Saudi Arabi a in a firm drawing attractive salary and other perks. THE appellant took the fourth respondent to Damam by arranging a free visa. During his stay in Damam, the fourth respondent was living under the care and protection at the expense of the appellant. THE fourth respondent was having access to all the personal belongings of the appellant. On 1. 4. 1992, the appellant found that the outer door of the flat, where he was residing, found open and that the lock of the table drawer was broken and amounts kept in it were missing. THE appellant was sure that the fourth respondent had committed theft of 95,000 Saudi Riyals kept in the table drawer. Anticipating criminal action, the fourth respondent escaped to India. THE fourth respondent came to his native place one week after the arrival of the appellant. He brought two bags of foreign articles and 40 sovereigns of gold. THE enquiries made by the appellant revealed that the entire amounts stolen from him was arranged to reach India through improper channels.

(3.) THE first respondent filed a counter affidavit stating that since the theft of Saudi Riyals by the fourth respondent was outside the country, the department could not make any enquiry based on the complaint without any documentary evidence. However, it was stated that the first respondent would be taking appropriate action as per law when credible and valuable informations regarding the violation of FERA are furnished.