1995 (9) TMI 266 - SC - Companies Law

Validity of the complaint made by the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate Government of India Bombay against the appellants alleging commission of offences under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 4(1) 4(2) 5(1)(a) 5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c ) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 corresponding to section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 8(1) 8(2) 9(1)(a) 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d ) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act challenged Held that - Appeal dismissed. The complaint being maintainable no interference is called for as in the facts and circumstances of the case it is not necessary to consider any of such contentions raised by Mr. Mahajan because in the instant case the complaint has been lodged not only for the violation of. the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 but also nor an offence under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Such complaint of commission of an offence under section. 120B of the Indian Penal Code in any event could not have been decided by the departmental authority either under the old Act or under the new Act. Such complaint therefore was to be made only before the criminal court.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of complaint under Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts of 1947 and 1973; Consistency between old and new Acts; Procedural requirements for lodging complaints in criminal courts.

Analysis:
The case involved an appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Bombay regarding the validity of a complaint made under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts of 1947 and 1973. The appellants challenged the complaint alleging offenses under various sections of the Acts. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate initially dismissed the complaint, citing inconsistencies between the penal provisions and procedures under the two Acts. The State of Maharashtra filed a revision petition, leading to the High Court's decision that there was no substantive right affected by the alleged inconsistency between the old and new Acts. The High Court held the complaint as maintainable, setting aside the dismissal order.

The appellants contended that there was inherent inconsistency between the old and new Acts concerning lodging complaints in criminal courts. They argued that under the old Act of 1947, a departmental adjudication by Revenue authorities was a prerequisite before filing a complaint in a criminal court. They claimed that the new Act of 1973 did not provide clear guidelines for initiating departmental proceedings or lodging complaints, leading to excessive discretionary power. However, the court found the complaint maintainable as it involved violations under the old Act of 1947 and an offense under the Indian Penal Code, which could only be decided by a criminal court.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, stating that the complaint was maintainable based on the circumstances of the case. The court highlighted that the complaint involved offenses under both the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of 1947 and the Indian Penal Code, necessitating its consideration by a criminal court. Despite the procedural arguments raised, the court found no interference warranted, upholding the High Court's decision on the validity of the complaint.