9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceased) and against one S.C. Mehta under Section 50 of the FERA calling upon the noticees to show cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on them under the said Act for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) of FERA read with Sections 64(2) and 51 thereof. There is no one by the name of S.C. Mehta in the petitioner's family. However, the notice was sent to the address of the petitioner who is S.G. Mehta. The petitioner reasonably assumed that S.C. Mehta was a misdescription of the petitioner. 3. Prior to issuance of the show cause notice, on January 15, 1990, the premises of Thomas Duff Company were searched under Section 37 of FERA and some documents were seized by the authorities. A further search was undertaken on January 18, 1990. The statements of G.L. Mehta and S.G. Mehta (writ petitioners) were recorded on February 12, 1990. The petitioner gave his reply to the show cause notice vide letter dated February 15, 1991. 4. Mr. Banerjee, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the adjudication proceeding under Section 51 of FERA has not proceeded since then. The entire proceeding is at a nascent stage. The respondent No. 2 issued letters ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o deprivation of the constitutional right of the petitioner to speedy investigation and trial for an offence alleged to have been committed at a point of time prior to 1991. The respondents have violated the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by keeping the proceeding pending for 26 years. 8. Mr. Banerjee, relied on the following decisions :- (i) State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radha Kishan, AIR 1998 S.C. 1833. (ii) The State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh, AIR 1990 S.C. 1308. (iii) P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, AIR 2006 S.C. 207. (iv) Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras & Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 483 = 1989 (42) E.L.T. 515 (S.C.). (v) R.M. Mehrotra v. Enforcement Directorate and Others, 2009 (246) E.L.T. 141 (Del). (vi) Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 117. (vii) State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335. (viii) Unreported Supreme Court order dated January 10, 2017 in SLP (Cri.) No. 7085 of 2012 (S.M. Dutta and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors.). (ix) &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Directorate and the prosecution is legitimate and rightful. 12. It was then submitted that the petitioner has replied to the show cause notice on the basis of the documents supplied with the notice and did not indicate in his reply that he required inspection of any other document. Whenever notices for hearing were issued, the petitioner raked up the issue of inspection of documents or supply of copies thereof just to stall the proceeding. 13. The petitioner prays for quashing of the show cause notice only on the ground of delay in proceeding with the adjudication. However, no representation was ever made by the petitioner to the authorities to expedite the proceeding. 14. Learned Counsel finally relied on the following decisions in support of his submission that simply on the ground of delay a prosecution cannot be quashed :- (i) State of Rajasthan v. Ikbal Hussen, 2004 AIR SCW 5196. (ii) P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2002 SC 1856. (iii) Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement, AIR 2006 SC 1301 = 2006 (197) E.L.T. 18 (S.C.). 15. On the basis of the aforesaid subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued against the concerned employee 10 years after he committed the alleged irregularities. The matter being carried to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that allowing the respondent employer to proceed further with the departmental proceedings after such a long lapse of time would be very prejudicial to the appellant employee. Keeping a higher Government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. Protracted disciplinary enquiry against a Government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interest of the Government employee but in public interest and also in the interest of inspiring confidence in the minds of the Government employees. The mental agony and sufferings of the employee due to the protracted disciplinary proceeding would be much more than the punishment. 20. The decision in Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals, Madras and Ors. (supra), in my opinion, is not very relevant to the facts of the present case. In that case, Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 fell for consideration by the Hon'ble Apex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... year 1981. Charge-sheet was submitted on 22 February, 1991. Nothing happened till April, 1999 when the appellant approached the writ Court for quashing of the proceedings before the Trial Court. Being unsuccessful before the High Court, the appellant carried the matter to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the criminal proceeding was quashed solely on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay. 23. In State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court gave, by way of illustration, a few categories of cases wherein the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. 24. Reliance was also placed on the Supreme Court's Order dated 10 January, 2017 passed in SLP (Cri.) No. 7085/2012 (S.M. Dutta & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.), whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the complaint in question observing that the same had been filed way back in the year of 1994 and was still at a nascent stage after almost 22 years. 25. In A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel appearing for the State of Bihar in one of the appeals. Further, it is nobody's case that a criminal trial or an adjudication proceeding must be completed within a stipulated period of time. This case, in my opinion, has no relevance to the facts of the instant case. 27. In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (supra), a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in its zeal to protect the right to speedy trial of an accused the Court cannot devise and almost enact bars of limitation beyond which the trial shall not proceed and arm of law shall lose its hold though the Legislature has not chosen to do so. Bars of limitation, judicially engrafted, are, no doubt, meant to provide a solution to the problem of protracted trials. But a solution of this nature gives rise to greater problems like scuttling a trial without adjudication, stultifying access to justice and giving easy exit from the portals of justice. Such general remedial measures cannot be said to be apt solutions. For two reasons, such bars of limitation are uncalled for and impermissible : first, because it tantamounts to impermissible legislation - an activity beyond the power which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ow cause notice. The petitioner's Advocates by a letter dated 9 December, 1999 sought for adjournment of the hearing on the ground that the Learned Advocate who was handling the case was out of India and would return in end December, 1999. This was followed by a letter dated 12 January, 2000 whereby request was made to give inspection and supply copies of the relevant documents. This was followed by a letter dated 24 January, 2000 to similar effect. By a letter dated 7 February, 2000 as corrected by a letter dated 9 February, 2000, the petitioner's Learned Advocate communicated to the Authorities a list of documents that the petitioner required to effectively deal with the charge brought against the petitioner. There are correspondence on record in the form of letters written by the petitioner's Advocates to the respondent authorities in 2005 asking for inspection of documents and copies thereof. After a long lapse of 16 years another notice of hearing dated 13 February, 2015 was issued by the authorities. In response, by their letter dated 27 February, 2015 the petitioner's Advocates put on record that they had not yet received copies of the documents relied upon by the au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explanation in the affidavit filed by the respondents regarding the inordinate delay in commencing the adjudication proceeding. The only statement made is that each time a notice of hearing was given, the petitioner contended that hearing should be adjourned because copies of the relevant documents had not been supplied by the respondents to the petitioner. This, in my opinion, did not amount to any dilatory tactics on the part of the petitioner. He was well within his rights to ask for copies of documents which the respondents intended to rely upon to connect the petitioner with the impugned transaction allegedly undertaken in violation of the provisions of FERA. It was equally an obligation on the part of the respondents to supply copies of such documents to the petitioner before any hearing took place to enable the petitioner to meaningfully defend himself at the hearing. This is nothing but a basic requirement of the principles of natural justice. 31. In view of the aforesaid submission, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the delay in the adjudication proceeding. It is indifference, disinterest and lack of diligence on the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t ask for speedy conclusion of the adjudication process. It was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to diligently proceed with the adjudication and come to a conclusion at an early date. A charge of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature cannot be allowed to hang over the head of a citizen indefinitely without the concerned authority coming to a conclusion as to whether or not there is substance in the charge. Just as a person against whom a quasi-criminal charge has been brought is liable to be punished if the charge is proved, equally, he is entitled to be exonerated of the charge if the charge cannot be established with proper evidence. Either way, the decision must be reached within a reasonable period of time. This is in public interest and is essential to preserve public confidence in the adjudication process. The prejudices that a charged person suffers by reason of undue long pendency of a proceeding against him are many fold as noted in some of the decisions discussed above. In the facts of the present case by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the delay that has been caused in the adjudication process is reasonable and absolutely no explanation has been furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
