RADHESHYAM KEJRIWAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revisional application directed against the order dated September 2, 1997 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Calcutta in complaint case No. 965/95 where -under a prayer of the Petitioner being an accused for quashing the said proceedings under Sec. 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was rejected.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the filing of this petition may be summarised as follows. The residential premises of the Petitioner, a businessman, was searched by the officer of the Enforcement Directorate on May 22, 1992 and certain documents were seized therefrom. Thereafter on May 7, 1993 a show -.cause -notice was served against him by the Enforcement Directorate directing him to show -cause why he should not be proceeded against for contravening the provisions of Sec. 9(1)(f)(i) and Sec. 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The Petitioner gave a reply to this notice showing cause. On May 23, 1992 he was arrested under Sec. 35 of the said Act and, later, on that very date was enlarged on bail. On December 29, 1994 the Respondents served an opportunity -notice on him as required under Sec. 61 of the FERA. Thereafter an adjudication proceeding in respect of the said show -cause notice bearing No. T -4/2 -C/93 dated May 7, 1993 was instituted before the Special Director, Enforcement directorate, FERA, New Delhi and the Presiding Officer after hearing both the parties and considering the submission on behalf of both passed his order dated November 18, 1996 holding that the Enforcement Directorate had failed to make out a. prima facie case in support of the charges of violation of provisions of Ss. 9(1)(f)(i) and 8(2) of the FERA, 1973 against the Petitioner and passed an order directing the aforementioned departmental proceeding to be dropped. In the meantime, on July 26, 1995 the Respondents filed a complaint in. the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta against the Petitioner on the same cause of action which was taken cognizance of by the Learned Magistrate. According to the Petitioner and the complaint containing the selfsame allegations as were made in the aforementioned show -cause notice and such allegations having already been dwelt upon by the departmental authority, there cannot be any triable issue against him by the Court. The same issues having already been adjudicated upon by the prosecuting agency. The Petitioner's contention continues, the Learned Magistrate ought to have dropped the complaint. But the Learned Magistrate having not done so, the continuation of the proceeding has resulted in abuse of the process of the Court. The Court below ought to have taken into consideration the fact that the said adjudication -order having not been disputed or appealled against by the prosecuting agency, the proceeding was liable to be dropped.

(3.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order of the Learned Magistrate not dropping the proceeding and directing continuance of the same, the Petitioner has preferred the present revisional application challenging the order as illegal, improper and liable to be set aside.