2017 (7) TMI 1017 - HC - FEMA

Contravention of certain provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Held that - It is of conscious of the fact that by this order, the petitioner should not take advantage and protract the proceedings. Likewise by rejecting this petition, I am of the considered view that it would amount to denial of a reasonable opportunity of argument since framing of charges is an important event in the trial of warrant cases. In order to strike the balance between the prosecution s objections and the petitioner s request, it would be appropriate to direct the Court below to grant one day time for the petitioner to put forth his arguments with regard to framing of charges. In the result, the charges framed on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to put forth his arguments on the charges framed in the said case. Such an exercise shall be completed within one working day and such date shall be fixed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai on or before 31.07.2017. It is made clear that I have not expressed any of my views with regard to the merits of the petitioner s case and it is open to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai to frame charges against the petitioner, if such arguments are not advanced on the stipulated date.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging framing of charges under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) - Denial of opportunity for arguments - Delay in proceedings - Violation of principles of natural justice - Exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of framing of charges under FERA, 1973, which was passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner had been discharged earlier but the order was set aside by the High Court, leading to fresh summons. The petitioner sought an adjournment to present arguments on framing of charges, which was denied, and charges were framed. The petitioner contended that denial of opportunity to present arguments violated principles of natural justice. The prosecution argued against the petition, stating that any indulgence to the petitioner would prolong the proceedings. The court noted that the delay in proceedings was not solely attributable to the petitioner, as the prosecution had also contributed to it by examining only seven witnesses over a long period. The court found that one day's adjournment for the petitioner's arguments would not cause a miscarriage of justice and directed the lower court to allow the petitioner to present arguments on the charges within a stipulated time limit.

The court considered the prosecution's objections and the petitioner's request, aiming to strike a balance and ensure a fair opportunity for the petitioner without unduly prolonging the proceedings. It set aside the charges framed earlier and directed the lower court to grant one day for the petitioner to present arguments on the charges. The court clarified that this decision did not express any views on the merits of the petitioner's case. Emphasizing the seriousness of the allegations and the need for a speedy trial, the court directed the lower court to conclude the main proceedings within three months, possibly on a day-to-day basis if necessary. The court allowed the Criminal Original Petition and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions, ensuring a fair opportunity for the petitioner while expediting the trial process to secure the ends of justice.