RATNA MOHAMMED Vs. CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition is filed to call for the records of the respondent in C.C.No.1 of 2000 pending on the file of the E.O.II, Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.

(2.) The above petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the proceedings of C.C.No.1 of 2000 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, ECONOMIC Offences-II, Egmore, Chennai. The petitioner submits that the respondent on information searched the residence of one Abdul Samath and seized large amount of foreign currencies. The said Abdul Samath was taken to the respondent office and statement was recorded from him. In his statement recorded under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, the petitioner is said to have stated that foreign currencies were delivered to him for safe keeping, being the sale proceeds of gold and silver, which were brought to India. The gold so imported was sold to C.Balu, S/o.Chellan. As a follow up measure the said C.Balu was also contacted and statement recorded from him. In the said statement the said Balu had stated that he had purchased foreign marked gold biscuit and paid considerations in dollars. Both the said Abdul Samath and C.Balu were arrested. The statement of Abdul Samath implicated the person, who dealt with foreign currencies, who had given a portion of foreign currency to him. Thereafter, a case in EOCC No.1164 of 1994 came to be filed against the said Abdul Samath (A1), C.Balu (A2) and petitioner A.3 for the offences under Section 8(1) of the FERA 1973 punishable under Section 56(1) (i) of the said Act.

(3.) The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings filed against him. He further submits that the petitioner was not taken into custody and no statement was recorded by the respondent prior to the filing of C.C.No.1164 of 1994 and as such, the petitioner was not aware of any such proceedings. No notice was served on the petitioner. The petitioner had retired to his native place at Kilakarai. Surprisingly, the petitioner was taken into custody, pursuant to the order of detention on 02-11-1993. The Hon'ble Advisory Board, which reviewed the case of the petitioner held that there was no sufficient cause for detention of the petitioner and directed that he be set at liberty. The petitioner during the course of incarceration as detenu under COFEPOSA ACT came to know that the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 56 of the Act. Thereafter, he had appeared before the lower court and received the complaint copy and other documents.