AMRESHWAR SAHAY,J. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE prayer of the petitioners, in this application is for quashing of the order dated 31.5.2002 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, r/w Section 49 (3) and (4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 as well as the entire criminal proceeding, being Complaint Case No. FEMA 2/2002, by the learned Special Judge, FERA/FEMA, Ranchi. The facts of the matter, according to the complaint petition (Annexure 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 Rs. 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 Director of Animal Husbandry, Government of Bihar for the purchase of medicines. But as a matter of fact, fake supply were shown by the suppliers and the money was withdrawn on the basis of fake allotment orders and the money was misappropriated by the accused persons. It revealed that Dr. K.M. Prasad was involved in another case, investigated by the C.B.I. i.e. R.C. 4(A)/96, in which the allegation of defrauding the Government was to the tune of Rs. 19,81,66,460/ -(Rupees Nineteen Crores, Eighty One Lakhs, Sixty Six Thousand Four Hundred and Sixty). Investigation revealed that the petitioner No. 1, Dr. K.M. Prasad had acquired huge move -able and immoveable assets, in his own name, and in the name of his children and others at different places. It further revealed that the petitioners No. 2 to 6 i.e. the sons and daughter of Dr. K.M. Prasad did receive foreign exchange remittances by way of foreign exchange instruments amounting USS 31,15,000/ - and pounds 1000 during 1991 -92. The said remittances were not actually genuine gift amount but were suspected to have been procured and involved in violation of FERA, 1973 by the persons involved in the Animal Husbandry Scam. The Enforcement Directorate, examined the accused persons and the relevant documents of Income Tax Department. From scrutiny of documents, it came to light that Smt. Rashmi Kumari (Petitioner No. 6) had received a total amount of US 56,000/ - by way of four demand drafts on four different dates, which were deposited 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/ -, US 57,000/ -and US 70,000/ - and Pounds 1000/ -respectively in similar manner. Dr. K.M. Prasad is said to have admitted that his sons were having properties at Bombay, Bangalore, Delhi and Patna and further that he was working as the Assistant Director in Animal Husbandry Department at Ranchi and was getting a monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/ - only. It is alleged that the foreign exchange .remittances totally US 3,15,000/ - and pounds 10007 - received by the petitioners No. 2, 5 to 6 were arranged by Dr. K.M. Prasad to be received from abroad, in the name of his children by making payment in Indian Rupees equivalent to the said amount of foreign exchange, out of the aforesaid amount, without previous general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India and thereby contravened different subsections of Section 9 read with Section 64(2) of the FERA, 1973 punishable under Section 56 of the said Act.'
(3.) ON the basis of the complaint, the opposite party, prayed that the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 56 of the FERA, 1973 read with Section 49 (3) and (4) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) be taken against the accused petitioners and they be prosecuted for committing the aforesaid offences.;