9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1017X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be filed against the petitioner for contravention of certain provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (herein after referred to as FERA, 1973). Earlier the petitioner was discharged from the case on 18.05.2015 and on revision, the order of discharge was set aside by this Court on 01.02.2017 in Crl.R.C.No.937 of 2015. Thereafter, fresh summons were issued to the petitioner on 22.02.2017. On 10.04.2017, the arguments relating to framing of charges commenced by the department and on 19.04.2017, an order of framing of charges came to be passed. Challenging the same, the present petition has been filed. 3. I have heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.G.Rajagopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om 1996 onwards was also attributable to the prosecution since between the period from 12.08.1996 when the chief examination commenced and till 12.04.2017, the prosecution has examined only seven witnesses and hence submitted that the delay cannot be attributed on the petitioner. 7. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Senior counsels on either side. 8. On a perusal of the adjudication, it is seen that the learned Magistrate has posted the case for adjournment from 27.03.2017, 28.03.2017, 04.04.2017, and 05.04.2017. On 10.04.2017, the prosecution had submitted their arguments and the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter to 13.04.2017 for the reply arguments of the petitioner herein. Framing of charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l 12.04.2017, the same was not controverted by the learned ASGI. It is no doubt that if the proceedings are being unwarrantedly protracted and the delay is not attributed to the prosecution, such delay is liable to be condemned. In the present case on hand, since the prosecution has also contributed to the delay in examining only seven witnesses till 12.04.2017 and also since there was some time consumed between the petitioner's discharge and the subsequent order setting aside the discharge, the learned ASGI's submission of attributing the delay on the petitioner is unfounded. 10. The learned Additional Solicitor General also submitted that if any further opportunity is given to the petitioner, the same would violate this Court' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons and the petitioner's request, it would be appropriate to direct the Court below to grant one day time for the petitioner to put forth his arguments with regard to framing of charges. 13. In the result, the charges framed on 19.04.2017 in E.O.C.C.No.27 of 1996 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai is set aside. The petitioner is permitted to put forth his arguments on the charges framed in the said case. Such an exercise shall be completed within one working day and such date shall be fixed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai on or before 31.07.2017. It is made clear that I have not expressed any of my views with regard to the merit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
