T T V DHINAKARAN Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has come forward with this revision challenging the order of dismissal dated 20. 10. 1997 passed in EOCC. No. 27/1996 dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under sections 173[2] and 173[8] Cr. P. C. seeking for the relief of directing the respondent/complainant to file the supplementary complaint or final report pursuant to the further investigation done and to comply with section 173[2] Cr. P. C. and consequently to adjourn the trial in EOCC. No. 27/1996 until the above procedures are completed.

(2.) MR. B. KUMAR, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner having been implicated as an accused in this case is entitled to know the exact and definite allegation leveled against him by the complainant, otherwise it is not possible for him to defend his case by effectively cross-examining the prosecution witnesses. It is contended that unless and until the petitioner/accused knows the case of the complainant in its entirety, the petitioner would be prevented in defending his case and that would result in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that though the complaint is instituted otherwise than on a police report, the complainant should follow the procedures contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as Foreign Exchange Regulation Act [hereinafter referred to as "fera Act"].

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel would contend that such being the position, the provisions under sections 173[2] and 173[8] are also equally applicable to the proceedings initiated otherwise than on a police report and as such, as and when the prosecution, viz. , the complainant collects further materials by further investigation, those materials and documents should be furnished to the accused. , otherwise, that would cause a serious prejudice to the accused in defending his case. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned Trial Magistrate has passed the impugned order without considering those difficulties and the fundamental requirements has contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of rights of the accused, viz. , the petitioner herein to defend his case and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.