1998 (2) TMI 299 - HC - FEMA

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the lower court's order refusing adjournment.
2. Interpretation and application of Section 309 of Cr. P.C. regarding adjournments.
3. Impact of pending appeals before the FERA Board on ongoing criminal proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the lower court's order refusing adjournment:

The petitioner/accused sought to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97, which denied adjournment. The lower court observed that the petitioner had been repeatedly seeking adjournments without substantial reasons, thus refusing the request. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C., seeking to overturn this decision.

2. Interpretation and application of Section 309 of Cr. P.C. regarding adjournments:

Section 309 of Cr. P.C. states that trials should be conducted expeditiously and witnesses should be examined continuously unless adjournment is necessary for recorded reasons. The court emphasized that adjournments should have a specified time limit and not be indefinite. The Supreme Court in P. Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal (AIR 1984 S.C. 1693) held that criminal courts could adjourn cases if pending proceedings elsewhere might impact the trial, but such adjournments should not be indefinite or unduly long.

3. Impact of pending appeals before the FERA Board on ongoing criminal proceedings:

The petitioner argued that the stay order by the FERA Board warranted postponing the trial. However, the court noted that the Division Bench of Madras High Court in Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Hameed Jahuffer (1996 (1) MLJ 260) did not mandate indefinite postponement of criminal trials due to pending appeals before the FERA Board. The court reiterated that criminal proceedings should not be indefinitely delayed due to pending appeals, as emphasized by the Supreme Court and other precedents.

The court acknowledged that while the outcome of the FERA Board appeal could influence the criminal case, it should not halt the trial indefinitely. The petitioner was given a reasonable period of six months to expedite the appeal before the FERA Board. The court underscored that no further extensions would be granted beyond this period.

Conclusion:

The petition was allowed, setting aside the lower court's order and granting a postponement of the trial until 31-08-1998. The court directed that no further adjournments would be granted based on the pending appeal before the FERA Board. The Registrar was instructed to notify the FERA Board of this decision, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

Final Order:

The trial in C.C. No. 881/93 was adjourned until 31-08-1998, with no further extensions. The stay petition in Crl. M.P. 120 of 1998 was dismissed as unnecessary. The Registrar was directed to inform the FERA Board about the order to facilitate the timely resolution of the appeal.