9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality and validity of proceedings under section 482 of Cr. P.C. for quashing proceedings in C.C. No. 147 of 2000 on contravention of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Analysis: The accused filed a petition under section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 147 of 2000, challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings. The accused was charged with contravening section 18(2) read with sections 18(3) and 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, punishable under section 56(1)(i) of the Act. The accused argued that there were no grounds for the Magistrate to take cognizance of the case as the penalty imposed had been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. The accused relied on legal precedents to support their contentions, seeking the petition's allowance. The respondent, the complainant, contended that the proceedings against the accused were legal and proper, highlighting the contravention of the provisions of law by the accused. The respondent argued that no grounds were made out by the accused to quash the proceedings, urging the dismissal of the revision petition. The Court carefully considered the arguments presented by both parties. A private complaint was lodged against the accused by the Enforcement Officer, alleging the accused's failure to realize export proceeds, leading to a penalty imposition. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case and ordered the issuance of process. The accused had appealed against the penalty order, which was subsequently set aside by the Appellate Tribunal. Legal principles emphasizing the quashing of proceedings when no complaint was maintained against the accused and the stay of orders preventing complaints were cited to support the accused's position. Considering the facts and legal precedents, the Court concluded that the continuation of proceedings before the Trial Court would amount to an abuse of process of law. Therefore, the Court exercised its inherent powers to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 147 of 2000, leading to the discharge of the accused. The judgment allowed the petition, effectively ending the legal proceedings against the accused.
|
