P. BALASUBRAMANIAM Vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused in E.O.C. Nos. 343/93, 346/93, 345/93 and 344/93 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Madras, have filed these petitions under S. 482 Cr.P.C. praying to all for the records in the above cases and quash the same.

(2.) SHORT facts are: In E.O.C.C. No. 346 of 1993; the respondent in Criminal O.P. No. 12628 of 1993 has filed a complaint against the petitioner in that case for an offence under S. 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (which I shall hereafter refer to as "Act"). The allegations in it are briefly as follows:

(3.) MR . A.V. Somasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the principle of promissory estoppel looms large in these cases and that the respondent is precluded form filing the complaints on the principle of promissory estoppel. He would further submit that while the appeals were entertained, these complaints ought not to have been filed and they are premature. I have heard Mr. P. Rajamanicham, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, on the above aspects.