9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 for non-compliance of summons under Section 40(3). 2. Whether the petitioner's responses to summons constituted compliance or evasion. 3. Admissibility of further summons issued after the filing of the complaint. 4. Consideration of quashing the proceedings based on the facts and law. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Applicability of Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 for non-compliance of summons under Section 40(3): The petitioner argued that Section 56 of the Act, which deals with offences involving specific amounts or values, should not apply to non-compliance with summons under Section 40(3) since it cannot be computed in terms of value or amount. The court referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in "Enforcement Directorate and another v. M.Samba Siva Rao and others" (AIR 2000 SC 2128), which held that non-compliance with summons under Section 40 falls within the purview of Section 56. The court concluded that Section 56 applies even if no amount or value is involved in the contravention. 2. Whether the petitioner's responses to summons constituted compliance or evasion: The petitioner contended that she had responded to the summons by seeking time due to health issues and had provided necessary documents like her passport and bank statements. The court examined the complaint and found that the petitioner had consistently sought time to appear due to illness and had submitted medical certificates. The court noted that the petitioner had not refused or disobeyed the summons but had shown her willingness to cooperate. Therefore, the court determined that there was no prima facie case of refusal or disobedience of the summons. 3. Admissibility of further summons issued after the filing of the complaint: The respondent issued further summons after filing the complaint, which the petitioner complied with by appearing before the authorities, leading to her arrest and judicial custody. The court found merit in the petitioner's argument that the issuance of further summons and her compliance could be seen as condonation of any earlier non-appearance. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, where the question of law was kept open due to the petitioner's subsequent compliance. 4. Consideration of quashing the proceedings based on the facts and law: The court referred to the guidelines for quashing proceedings established by the Supreme Court in "State of Haryana and Others V. Bhajan Lal and Others" (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335). It found that the allegations in the complaint did not constitute an offence under Section 40(3) of the Act and continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Despite the trial having commenced, the court held that it could exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice and prevent abuse of the court's process. Conclusion: The court quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner in E.O.C.C.No.70 of 1996, finding that the petitioner's responses to the summons did not constitute non-compliance, and the subsequent summons and compliance indicated condonation of any earlier non-appearance. The court emphasized the importance of preventing abuse of the judicial process and ensuring justice.
|
