K SADASIVAM Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER ENFORCEMENT DTE MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989 of 1997 in C.C. No. 881/93 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan (E.O. II) Egmore, Madras.

(2.) THE petitioner/accused filed an application under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. in Crl. M.P. No. 907/97 in C.C. No. 881/93 before the lower Court by stating as follows :-

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. B. Kumar contended that a Division Bench of Madras High Court in the decision reported in Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras and Another v. Hameed Jahuffer 1996 (1) MLJ 260] considered all these aspects and stated that when an order of stay has been passed by the FERA Board, it is expeditious to postpone the trial till the disposal of the appeal before the FERA Board. He also distinguished the judgment of His Lordship Mr. Justice Pratap Singh, J. reported in A.I. Shamsudeen and Othersv.THE Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and Others[1994 MLJ (Crl) 636] by pointing out to Para 4 of the said judgment wherein it is stated by the Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent that no stay of the operation of the adjudication order was passed by the Appellate Board, whereas in the present case the stay order has been passed by the FERA Board viz., Appellate Board, and in those circumstances the decision reported in 1994 MLJ (Crl) 636 will have no application. Even admitting that there is stay order in this case and the decision of Justice Pratap Singh, J., reported in 1994 MLJ (Crl) 636 will have no application to the facts of the present case, even then the Division Bench of our High Court in the decision reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 has not stated that the criminal case should be postponed indefinitely for an unspecified period, and in stead the Division Bench of our High Court reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 has only stated that the criminal court shall be within its rights to judicially deal with the situation as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in P. Jayappanv.S.K. Perumal.