9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the judgment dated 10.01.2012 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1177 of 2011. 2. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 24.08.2012. As service could not be effected in the normal course, by an order dated 08.05.2014, this Court directed the Appellant to take appropriate steps for effecting the service on the Respondent as per the procedure prescribed under Section 65 of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. P.C.). As the Respondent could not be served, the Registry of this Court was directed to reissue summons to the Respondent which were to be served through the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore, Karnataka. A report was received from the Special Court (Economic Offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s), Bangalore by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate (FERA), Bangalore. The Respondent was represented in the said proceedings by an Advocate. 4. By a judgment dated 20.12.2006, the Special Court (Economic Offences), Bangalore dismissed the complaint and acquitted the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 56 (1) of FERA, 1973. The case against the two other accused were split up and they were directed to face trial. It was held by the Special Court that the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate were not duly served on the Respondent personally. The submission on behalf of the complainant that service of summons on the Respondent was effected by affixing a copy of the summons on door of the house of the Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. The sole point that arises for our consideration in this case is whether disobedience to respond to the summons issued under Section 40(3) FERA would amount to an offence under Section 56 of FERA, 1973. This point has come up for consideration before this Court in Enforcement Director and Anr. v. M.Samba Siva Rao and Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 431. Due to the divergence of opinion of the High Courts of Kerala, Madras on one hand and High Court of Andhra Pradesh on the other, a three Judge Bench of this Court considered the matter and held as follows: "4. A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court considered this question in the case of Itty v. Asstt. Director [(1992) 58 ELT 172 (Ker)]. On a conjoint reading of Sections 40 and 56 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Judge of the Madras High Court by judgment dated 1-8-1997. The Madras High Court also came to the conclusion that the entire Section 56 of the Act is identified and substantiated only in terms of the extent and value of the money involved in the offence, and therefore, violation or contravention of summons, issued under Section 40 of the Act unrelated to the money involved in the investigation cannot be held to be punishable under Section 56. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Madras High Court, the department had preferred appeals to this Court, which were registered as Criminal Appeals Nos. 143-44 of 1998, but the question raised was not necessary to be answered as the persons concerned appeared before the Enforcement Authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
