MODERN MALLEABLES LIMITED Vs. B R SINKU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are the ten revisional applications, namely, CRR 1480 of 2005, CRR 1482 of 2005, CRR 296 of 2005, CRR 297 of 2005, CRR 298 of 2005, CRR 299 of 2005, CRR 300 of 2005, CRR 1253 of 2006, CRR 1254 of 2006, CRR 1256 of 2006 praying for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. As the parties are the same and identical questions of law are involved, all the aforesaid revisional applications are taken up together for disposal. The factual matrix of the case may be summarised as follows:

(2.) It has been contended in the revisional application that prior to the institution of the criminal proceeding under Section 56 read with Section 68 of the FERA, the adjudication proceeding under Section 50 of the Act was started against the accused persons as far back as in August, 1995 pursuant to the issuance of memo No. T-4/20-C-95 (SCN) dated 28.8.1995. By an order dated July 31, 2002 the adjudicating authority, namely, the Special Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi exonerated the petitioners of the charges of contravention of provisions of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with Central Government notification No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 and 3 both dated 1.1.1974. No appeal has been preferred against the order of the adjudicating authority. For the aforesaid reasons the petitioners have filed the revisional applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.

(3.) Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the departmental proceedings it was held that the charges against the noticees do not survive with strength and the proceedings deserved to be dropped. It is contended that in view of such finding made by the adjudicating authority, there is no basis for the criminal proceeding. Mr. Roy contends that no appeal was preferred against the order of the adjudicating authority. Mr. Roy has submitted the Xerox copies of the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRR 1273 of 2005 and CRR 2642 of 2006. Mr. Roy submits that the factual scenario in all these cases is the same and that the transaction was the same and in all 25 complaints were filed before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate out of which seven revisional applications have been disposed of by Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar quashing the proceedings and eight other revisional applications were disposed of by Hon'ble Justice Partha Sakha Dutta quashing the criminal proceedings. Mr. Roy submits that these are the ten revisional applications which arose out of the same transactions and as the transaction is the same the decisions in those two cases are squarely applicable in these revisional applications.