9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (5) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, on a plain literal meaning being given to the language used in Section 56 of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that violation or contravention of the directions given under the summons under Section 40 would come within the purview of Section 56 and, therefore would be punishable thereunder, and the impugned judgment of the Delhi High Court as well the judgment of Kerala High Court must be held to have been wrongly decided. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgments of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court and allow these appeals and direct that the complaint proceedings may be proceeded with, in accordance with law. - CRL.A. 1294-1300 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 9-5-2000 - G.B. Pattanaik, Doraiswamy Raju and S.N. Variava, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Soli J. Sorabjee, Attorney General, Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Ashok Panda, A.K. Ganguly, Sr. Advocates, Tufail A. Khan, Naveen Kumar Matta, Ms. Lata Krishnamurthy, P. Parmeshwaran, R.K. Handoo, K.V. Mohan, Rohit P. Ranjan, P. Ojha, K.V. Mohan, S.C. Ghosh, Satish Vig, D. Mahesh Babu, Rohit Minocha, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of 'offence' in General Clauses Act and on such an examination, it would appear that the impugned violation cannot be held to be an 'offence' and, therefore, cannot be made punishable under Section 56 of the Act, and the High Court, therefore was fully justified in quashing the complaints filed. For better appreciation of the contentions raised, it would be necessary to extract the provisions of Section 40 and Section 56 of the Act in extenso : Section 40 : Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents - (1) Any Gazetted officer of Enforcement shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (2) A summons to produce documents may be for the production of certain specified documents of a certain description in the possession or under the control of the person summoned. (3) All persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by authorised agents, as such officer may, direct; and all persons so summoned shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of [section 18 or section 18A] or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 or sub-section (2) of section 44 or section 57 or section 58] is again convicted of an offence under this Act [not being an offence under Section 13 or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of [section 18 or section 18A], or clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19 or sub-section (2) of Section 44 or Section 57 or section 58], the court by which such person is convicted may, in addition to any sentence which may be imposed on him under this section, by order, direct that, that person shall not carry on such business as the court may specify, being a business which is likely to facilitate the commission of such offence, for such period not exceeding three years, as may be specified by the court in the order. (4) For the purpose of sub-section (1) and (2), the following shall not be considered as adequate and special reasons for awarding a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months, namely - (i) the fact that the accused has been convicted for the first time of an offence under this Act. (ii) the fact that in any proceeding under this Act, other than a prosecution, the accused has been ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rala High Court considered this question in the case of Itty v. Assistant Director, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 172 (Ker.). On a conjoint reading of Sections 40 and 56 of the Act, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the failure to obey the summons issued under Section 40(1) cannot be held to be a contravention of the provisions of the Act. Rule, direction or order inasmuch as it is only when directions pertaining to some money value involved is disobeyed, such disobedience is punishable under Section 56 of the Act. The learned Judge applied the ordinary rules of construction that penal statutes should receive a strict construction and the person to be penalised must come squarely within the plain words of the enactment. We are unable to accept the constructions put in the aforesaid judgment as in our view clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 56(1) are material for deciding the quantum of punishment and further, there is no reason why the expression in any other case in Section 56(1)(ii) should be given any restrictive meaning to the effect that it must be in relation to the money value involved, as has been done by the Kerala High Court. The summons issued under Section 40, if not obey ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision would get attracted even though no amount or value is involved in the contravention in question. The aforesaid view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court appears to us, is the correct interpretation of the provisions contained in Sections 40 and 56 of the Act. 5. The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court in the impugned Judgment is of the view that Section 56 would bring within its sweep only such violation or contravention which under different provisions of the Act have been deemed to be a contravention under the Act like Section 43(4), Section 8(1) read with Sec. 45(1), Section 49 and so on. We are unable to accept this interpretation put by the learned Judge as in our view such interpretation given, would make the power to summons under Section 40 meaningless and the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 40 making it bounden duty for the persons summoned to attend purposeless. The learned Judge of the Delhi High Court also committed the same error as the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in interpreting clause (ii) of Section 56(1) by holding that the same is identified and substantiated only in terms of the money involved in the offence. On behalf of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
