9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the failure to attend before the complainant in pursuance of the summons issued under section 40 is an offence punishable under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Whether the proceedings in C.C. No. 17 of 1998 should be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Failure to Attend Summons as an Offence under Section 56: The petitioner contended that the failure to attend the summons issued under section 40 is not an offence punishable under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner argued that section 56 does not cover such cases and that it speaks about offences with reference to the amount or value involved. The judgment clarified that section 40 empowers authorities to summon individuals to give evidence or produce documents. Sub-section (3) of section 40 mandates that all persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by authorized agents and state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined. Section 56(1) provides for punishment upon conviction by a Court for contravention of any provisions of the Act, excluding certain sections. Clause (i) of section 56(1) deals with offences involving amounts exceeding one lakh rupees, while clause (ii) covers "any other case." The court held that the failure to obey the summons under section 40 is punishable under section 56(1)(ii), which applies to all other cases of contravention not involving a specific amount or value. The court rejected the petitioner's reliance on decisions from the Kerala and Madras High Courts, which suggested that section 56(1)(ii) only applies to offences involving amounts less than one lakh rupees. The court emphasized that the words "in any other case" in clause (ii) of section 56(1) refer to all cases not covered by clause (i), including contraventions without monetary value. The court cited section 43(4), which deems failure to produce documents during inspection as a contravention of the Act, punishable under section 56. 2. Quashing of Proceedings under Section 482: The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 17 of 1998, arguing that he had valid reasons for not attending the summons, including health issues and previous compliance with similar summons. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to appear before the complainant despite being aware of the summons. The court found that the lower court had prima facie material to take cognizance of the case under section 56 for contravention of section 40. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the lower court should have issued summons instead of non-bailable warrants, stating that it was within the discretion of the Presiding Officer. The court also dismissed the contention that the complaint should have been filed under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, instead of section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The court emphasized that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is a special act, and section 56 can be utilized for punishing contraventions of the Act, including section 40. The court highlighted that the petitioner had previously sought interim relief from the High Court to stay the operation of the summons, which was later vacated. In conclusion, the court held that there were no valid and justifiable reasons for quashing the proceedings in C.C. No. 17 of 1998 and dismissed the criminal petition.
|
