- (1.) These are the ten revisional applications, namely, CRR 1480 of 2005, CRR 1482 of 2005, CRR 296 of 2005, CRR 297 of 2005, CRR 298 of 2005, CRR 299 of 2005, CRR 300 of 2005, CRR 1253 of 2006, CRR 1254 of 2006, CRR 1256 of 2006 praying for quashing of the proceedings pending before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. As the parties are the same and identical questions of law are involved, all the aforesaid revisional applications are taken up together for disposal. The factual matrix of the case may be summarised as follows: In CRR 1480 of 2005 the case No. C 2942 of 1998 has been registered on the basis of a complaint made by the O.P. before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. It has been alleged in the complaint that accused No. 1 Modern Malleables Limitted is a limited Company and the other accused persons are the Director and Executive of the said Company and they are responsible for the day to day affairs and the conduct of the business of the Company. The accused Company through the other accused persons during the year 1991-1992 effected shipment of goods valued at total US $ 1,60,809.63 declared under three separate GRI Forms, namely, GS-267808 dated September 5, 1991 export value of US $ 66,551.40, GS 267809 dated September 12, 1991 export value of US $ 64,598.75, GS 267813 dated September 12, 1991 export value of US $ 29,659.48. The amount declared in GRI Form was repatriable in India within the stipulated period either within six months from the date of shipment or within the time as extended by RBI through their authorised bank, Calcutta. The accused persons failed to take any action or reasonable steps and refrained from taking action to secure the receipts of full export value of goods from the country of final destination of the goods within the six months from the date of shipment without any general or special permission of the RBI which amounts to violation of Section 18(2) of the FERA 1973 as amended with Central Government Notification No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 and 3 both dated 1.1.1974. Section 18(3) of the said Act further provides that where in relation to any goods to which a notification under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) applies, the prescribed period has expired and the payment therefor has not been made, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved by the person, who has sold or is entitled to sell the goods or procure the sale thereof, then such person has not taken reasonable steps to receive or recover the payment for the goods be presumed to have contravened the provision of Section 18(2) of the Act. The accused persons having failed to take any action or refrained from taking any action which has the effect of securing the export proceed of US 16,080.96 have not so far been received in India, the accused persons being the Director and Managers of the said Company have contravened the provisions of Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of the said Act and liable to be prosecuted under Section 56 of the Act.
(2.) It has been contended in the revisional application that prior to the institution of the criminal proceeding under Section 56 read with Section 68 of the FERA, the adjudication proceeding under Section 50 of the Act was started against the accused persons as far back as in August, 1995 pursuant to the issuance of memo No. T-4/20-C-95 (SCN) dated 28.8.1995. By an order dated July 31, 2002 the adjudicating authority, namely, the Special Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi exonerated the petitioners of the charges of contravention of provisions of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) read with Central Government notification No. F-1/67/EC/73-1 and 3 both dated 1.1.1974. No appeal has been preferred against the order of the adjudicating authority. For the aforesaid reasons the petitioners have filed the revisional applications under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for quashing of the proceedings pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta.
(3.) Mr. Debasish Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the departmental proceedings it was held that the charges against the noticees do not survive with strength and the proceedings deserved to be dropped. It is contended that in view of such finding made by the adjudicating authority, there is no basis for the criminal proceeding. Mr. Roy contends that no appeal was preferred against the order of the adjudicating authority. Mr. Roy has submitted the Xerox copies of the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRR 1273 of 2005 and CRR 2642 of 2006. Mr. Roy submits that the factual scenario in all these cases is the same and that the transaction was the same and in all 25 complaints were filed before the Court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate out of which seven revisional applications have been disposed of by Hon'ble Justice S.P. Talukdar quashing the proceedings and eight other revisional applications were disposed of by Hon'ble Justice Partha Sakha Dutta quashing the criminal proceedings. Mr. Roy submits that these are the ten revisional applications which arose out of the same transactions and as the transaction is the same the decisions in those two cases are squarely applicable in these revisional applications.;