9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved: Challenge to order dated 16th March 2006 passed by ACMM in Complaint Case No. 180 of 1991 u/s 174 IPC.
Issue 1: Cognizance of Offence under Section 174 IPC The complainant alleged that the petitioner failed to appear despite summons u/s 40(4) of FERA, leading to an offence u/s 174 IPC. The ACMM took cognizance of the offence on 21st August 1991. The petitioner argued that the complaint was not maintainable post-repeal of FERA by FEMA, and no complaint was filed within the sunset period. The ACMM held that cognizance was already taken and listed the case for pre-charge evidence on 17th April 2006. Issue 2: Maintainability of Complaint The petitioner contended that the complaint did not mention Section 56 FERA, which was the correct provision for the offence. The Supreme Court's ruling in Enforcement Directorate v. M. Samba Siva Rao mandated trying non-compliance under Section 56 FERA, not Section 174 IPC. The ACMM's decision to proceed under Section 56 FERA was deemed erroneous by the High Court. Issue 3: Conversion of Summons Case The ACMM erred in converting the summons case into a warrant case under Section 259 CrPC. The failure to mention Section 56 FERA in the complaint altered its nature, making it triable only in a summary manner u/s 174 IPC. The legal position did not change due to the accused's delayed appearance, leading to the quashing of all proceedings.
|
