9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Prosecution initiated after adjudication proceedings under FERA. 2. Legal bar on prosecution based on same facts as adjudication findings. 3. Double jeopardy and legal permissibility of adjudication and criminal prosecution. 4. Adjudicating Authority's findings not binding on Criminal Court. Analysis: 1. The petitioners were accused in a case under FERA after incriminating documents were seized during a search by the Income-Tax Department. The Enforcement Directorate took over the documents and initiated adjudication proceedings against the accused for violating FERA provisions. 2. The Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, FERA, gave a finding that the charges of contravention of FERA provisions failed due to insufficient evidence. However, the respondent later initiated criminal proceedings against the petitioners for a different violation of FERA based on the same set of facts. 3. The primary contention of the petitioners was that launching a prosecution after the Adjudicating Authority gave a clean chit amounted to harassment and misuse of power. The defense argued that the findings of the Adjudicating Authority should prevent criminal prosecution on the same facts. 4. The court considered the legal permissibility of adjudicatory proceedings and criminal prosecution for the same matter. It was clarified that such actions do not amount to double jeopardy under the Constitution. The Adjudicating Authority's findings were deemed not binding on the Criminal Court, allowing for a different conclusion based on evidence presented. 5. Despite acknowledging the illogical and paradoxical nature of prosecuting after a clean chit from the Adjudicating Authority, the court emphasized the obligation to follow the law. The judgment dismissed the petition, upholding the legal validity of initiating criminal proceedings even after a favorable adjudication outcome for the accused.
|
