9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (5) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re 1) filed by the complainant-opposite party, against the petitioners are as under :-- Pursuant to the order of Patna High Court and the Supreme Court, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Patna, took up the investigation of case No. RC 55(A)/96 registered under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 467, 468, 472, 484 and 402 of the Indian Penal code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (c) and (d) of he Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The allegation in brief is that the petitioner No. 1, Dr. K.M. Prasad in conspiracy with others defrauded the Government to the extent of ₹ 7,09,92,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Nine Lac and Ninety two thousand) during the period 1980-90, on the basis of fake allotment letters purportedly issued by the Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osited in her Punjab National Banks of Dubai, UAE. On enquiry the senders of those drafts were found to be fictitious persons. During enquiry, Smt. Rashmi Kumari disclosed that she had no knowledge at all as to who had sent the said amount to her. She further stated that her brother Kamlesh Kumar was looking after the entire transaction. Similar is the allegations against Rajesh Kr. Prasad (Petitioner No. 2) who received the total amount of US$ 75,000/- in the form of four cheques/ drafts, which was credited in his account held with Oriental Bank of Commerce, New Delhi. Similar is the allegation against Mukesh Kumar, (Petitioner No. 4), Abhishek Kumar (Petitioner No. 5) and Kamlesh Kumar (Petitioner 3) that they received US$ 57,000/-, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 999 against all the petitioners and summoned them to face trial. 6. Being aggrieved against the order dated 31.5.2002 taking cognizance, the petitioners have filed the present application for quashing of the order taking cognizance as well as the entire proceeding against them. 7. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the receipt of foreign exchange were made known to the Income Tax Authorities and the remittances in the foreign exchange received by the petitioners were accepted by the Income Tax Department. He submits that regarding the remittance of foreign exchange, no enquiry can proceed merely on the ground of receipt of foreign exchange by a person in India because of the fact that the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have to meticulously examine the allegations made in the complaint which is not permissible at the stage of taking cognizance and, therefore, the finding of a prima facie case arrived at by the learned Special Judge cannot be interfered with at this stage. Relying on the decision of this Court in Vijay Kr. Mallik v. Union of India, in W.P. (Cr.) No. 280 of 2002, decided on 18.12.2002 reported in 2003 (2) JCR 362 (Jhr) and submits that one of the co-accused, namely, Vijay Mallik by filing W.P. (Cr.) No. 280 of 2002 before this Court had also prayed for quashing of the 'entire criminal prosecution as well as the order dated 31.5.2002 whereby the Special Judge had taken cognizance of the offences. Since the same impugned order which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount of 2000 U.S. dollars with his uncle, who was to go for renal operation. According to the allegations, during the said period the petitioner purchased five Omega watches after taking some loan from his uncle Dr. S.B. Sinha and did not declare the said articles. The value of the said watches was 3297.90 Australian dollars. The prosecution says that during the course of the investigation the accused made a confessional statement and as he has committed breach of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, he was liable to be prosecuted and convicted. The accused, inter alia, submitted in his original application for quashing that there was no allegations against him, alleged confession was retracted and that the said confes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ication proceeding is pending. Both the prosecution under Section 56 of FERA and adjudication proceeding are two separate aspects. In view of the finding above by this Court, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners can't be accepted. 14. It has been held in catena of decisions by various High Courts and this Court as well as the Apex Court that the Courts while appreciating the charges under Section 482, cannot examine the allegations made in the complaint meticulously and the falsity or truthfulness of the prosecution cannot be examined at this stage. This Court cannot substitute its own finding over the finding of the learned Special Judge whereby he has found prima facie case against the petitioners. 15. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
