9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Regulation Act, 1973, which is punishable under section 56(1)( i ) of the said Act, challenging the legality and validity of the proceedings. 2. The Court has heard the arguments of Sri Kiran S. Javali, the learned Counsel on behalf of the accused, and Sri Vishwanath Shendge, the learned Central Government Standing Counsel on behalf of the complainant. 3. The learned Counsel for the accused strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impu- gned is illegal and improper. There were absolutely no grounds for the learned Magistrate to take cognizance of the case and issue process to the accused. The learned Counsel also contends that the main grouse of the complainant is that the accused has contrave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l contentions raised at the Bar. 6. From the material on record, it is seen that a private complaint has been preferred by the complainant - Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act), Government of India, against the four accused, in particular, contending that the accused had failed to realise the export pro- ceeds amounting to US $ 17403.70 and accordingly, the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, had passed an order on 30-3-1994 imposing penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs against the accused and as such, the accused is stated to have contravened section 18(2) read with sections 18(3) and 68(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which is punishable under section 56(1)( i ) of the said Act. The learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Neon Fab v. Enforcement Directorate [2002] 83 ECC 296, wherein it is held that once the Appellate Authority had stayed the order under the FERA Act, no complaint could have been filed for violation of the said order. In the case on hand, the order, which had been passed by the complainant had been set aside by the competent authority. 10. It is also seen from another decision of the Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Ashok Mfg. Co. (P.) Ltd. v. C.K. Moorjani 2003 (156) ELT 184, wherein it has been held that if assessee is exonerated in the Departmental proceedings on the same set of facts and charges, no criminal prosecution can be launched. 11. As stated earlier from the mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
