VASAVAMBA Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Ravi Anantha Padmanaban Advocate for the petitioners and of Mr. K. Senthil Kumar SpI. Public Prosecutor (FERA) on behalf of the Respondent the court made the following orders: Regarding the offence of having not paid the penalty under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act a complaint was filed against A1 to A3. The Petitioners are A2 and A3.

(2.) As admitted by the counsel appearing for the respondent the offence was committed by the company and so, the complaint was filed against the company as well as against the partners. According to the complaint the company is represented by one Sathyanarayana (A1) who is incharge of the affairs of the firm. As admitted there is no averment as against the petitioners (A2) and A3) who are wife and son respectively of A1.

(3.) It is also admitted in the counter filed by the counsel for the respondent that the Adjudication Authority found T.V. Sathyanarayana guilty of the contravention of Section 18 (2) and 18 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the other partners viz, the petitioners herein were not found guilty of the contravention. Whatever it is, Since there is no averment regarding the role played by the petitioners with reference to the offence under section 57 of the Act, I do not find any point in entertaining the complaint as against the petitioners.