Mehul Choksi vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 9802 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:27808


                                               1                         apl-1505-2019.odt




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                             CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1505 OF 2019

              Mehul Choksi                                            .....Applicant
                  Versus
              1. State of Maharashtra,
              2. Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai                      .... Respondents

                                              ......
                                             WITH
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2733 OF 2021
                                               IN
                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1505 OF 2019
                                              ......
                                             WITH
                              INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2736 OF 2021
                                               IN
                              CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1505 OF 2019

                                               -----
              Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate a/w. Rahul Agarwal, Yash Agrawal,
              Abhiraj Rai, Jasmin Purani, Rohit Kaul, Yashwardhan Tiwari for
              the Applicant.
              Mr. A.R. Patil, APP for the Respondent No.1-State.
              Mr. H.S. Venegavkar, Special P.P. a/w. Aayush Kedia for the
              Respondent No.2.
                                                 -----

                                               CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

                                               RESERVED ON  : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                               PRONOUNCED ON: 21st SEPTEMBER, 2023


                                                                                           1 of 27




                ::: Uploaded on - 21/09/2023                    ::: Downloaded on - 22/09/2023 07:19:02 :::
                                     2                    apl-1505-2019.odt




ORDER:

1. Heard Shri Vijay Aggarwal, learned counsel for the

Applicant in both Applications, Shri A.R. Patil, learned APP for the

Respondent No.1-State and Shri H.S. Venegavkar, learned Special

P.P. for the Respondent No.2.

2. The Applicant has challenged the order dated

30.8.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay

below Exhibit-55 in Criminal M.A. No. 997/2018. Said application

was filed by the Applicant before the learned Special Judge for

directions to dismiss the application preferred under Section 4 of

the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act 2018 (hereinafter referred to

as the "FEO Act"). The learned Special Judge directed that the

matter would proceed further for hearing of the arguments of

learned counsel for the respondent before him (i.e the Applicant

herein) and thereafter for rejoinder by learned SPP for the

Applicant before him (the Respondent No2 in the present

2 of 27

3 apl-1505-2019.odt

application before this Court) on the main application under

Section 4 of FEO Act.

3. The brief background of the case is mentioned in the

present application as follows:

i. An FIR No.RC02(E)/2018 was registered with BS & FC

(CBI) Mumbai on 15.2.2018 under section 120-B read with

420 of IPC and under section 13 (2) read with 13(1)(d) of

the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Pursuant to the

FIR, the charge sheet was filed by the CBI before the

learned Special CBI Judge on 15.5.2018. The learned

judge took cognizance against the Applicant and the other

accused on 22.5.2018. It was registered as Special CBI

Case No.38/2018 and is pending before the Special Judge

for CBI, Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. In pursuance to

the registration of the FIR by the CBI, The Enforcement

Directorate (for short, 'ED') registered Enforcement Case

Information Report [ECIR] No. MBZO-I/04/2018. The ED

filed a complaint under section 45 of the Prevention of

3 of 27

4 apl-1505-2019.odt

Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, 'PML Act') before

the Special PMLA Court. That court took cognizance on

3.7.2018 against the Applicant and the other accused and

the case is pending before that court at the stage of

appearance.

ii. On 10.7.2018, the ED filed an application under section 4

read with Section 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders

Ordinance, 2018 praying that the Applicant be declared as

a fugitive economic offender and his properties be

confiscated under FEO Act.

iii. The Applicant filed an application before the learned

Special Judge praying for dismissal of the application filed

under the FEO Act on the ground that the application

under section 4 of the FEO Act was not accompanied by an

affidavit as contemplated under section 297 of Cr.P.C.. This

application was filed below Exhibit-55 which was rejected

by the impugned order and hence the present application

is filed.

                                                                             4 of 27





                                     5                        apl-1505-2019.odt

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT :

4. Learned counsel Shri Aggarwal appearing for the

Applicant relied on various provisions of the FEO Act, the Code of

Criminal Procedure 1973 and the PML Act. He made the following

submissions:

i. Section 16 of the FEO Act puts the burden on the Director

or the authorized person to establish that an individual is

a fugitive economic offender or that the property in

question was the proceeds of crime or any other property

in which the individual, alleged to be an economic

offender, has an interest. He therefore submitted that the

averments in the application are important and they have

to be supported by a proper affidavit. In the present case,

the verification clause below the application under section

4 of the FEO Act is not proper. The requirements of

section 297 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Criminal

Manual issued by the Bombay High Court for the

guidance of the criminal courts are not complied with and

hence the application was not maintainable.

                                                                               5 of 27





                                      6                            apl-1505-2019.odt


ii.            There are various averments in the application filed by

the Deputy Director of ED which were not true and could

not be true. Therefore, it was necessary that the

application was supported by an affidavit so that the

person who filed the application was bound by the

averments in the application. As an example of one of the

false statements, learned counsel referred to paragraph-

9.5 of the said application, wherein it was mentioned that

the Applicant had left the country under suspicious

circumstances in the first week of January 2018, whereas

the FIR was filed in February 2018 against him and the

Applicant could not have imagined about the future

registration of the FIR. He also disputed the averment that

the Applicant was the prime conspirator and that he was

the mastermind behind the scam. He submitted that all

these averments were required to be supported by a

proper affidavit. He submitted that this application is

decided under the procedure mentioned in the FEO Act,

which mainly depends on the averments in the

6 of 27

7 apl-1505-2019.odt

application and therefore filing of this application in

proper form was very important. Therefore, it was all the

more necessary that the application was supported by an

affidavit adhering to the necessary ingredients of section

297 of Cr.P.C., which is mandatory in nature as it uses the

word 'shall'. He submitted that where a power is given to

do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done

in that way or not at all. The other methods of

performance are necessarily forbidden. In support of this

contention, he relied on a Division Bench judgment of this

Court in the case of Euro School Education Trust vs.

Divisional Fee Regulatory Committee, Pune and others1

iii. He submitted that Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of Cr.P.C.

provides that all offences under any law, other than IPC,

shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise

dealt with according to the same provisions of Cr.P.C., but

subject to any enactment for the time being in force

regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring

1 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 7766

7 of 27

8 apl-1505-2019.odt

into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. He

laid emphasis on Section 5 of Cr.P.C., which mentions that

nothing contained in Cr.P.C., in the absence of a specific

provision to the contrary, shall affect any special or local

law or any special form of procedure prescribed by any

other law. He submitted that unless there was

inconsistency between the FEO Act and Cr.P.C., it cannot

be said that the provisions of Cr.P.C., and in particular

section 297 of Cr.P.C. were not applicable. According to

Shri Aggarwal, there was no inconsistency between FEO

Act and Cr.P.C. in respect of these provisions.

iv. His next submission was that, under section 21 of FEO Act

it was mentioned that the provisions of the said Act shall

have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent

therewith contained in any other law. Therefore, since

there was no inconsistency with Cr.P.C., this overriding

effect did not affect the provisions of Cr.P.C. He submitted

that section 22 of FEO Act makes the position more clear

as it is mentioned that the provisions of FEO Act shall be

8 of 27

9 apl-1505-2019.odt

in addition to and not in derogation of any other law.

Therefore, according to Shri Aggarwal, the provisions of

the FEO Act will have to be read in addition to the

provisions of Cr.P.C..

v. Shri Aggarwal referred to Rule 3 of the Declaration of

Fugitive Economic Offender (Forms And Manner of Filing

Application) Rules 2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'FEO

Rules'). He submitted that this Rule will have to be read

with Section 297 of Cr.P.C.. In support of this submission,

he relied on the judgment of a Single Judge Bench of this

court in the case of M/s. Jaimin Jewelery Exports Pvt. Ltd.

and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and another 2. In the

said judgment, reference was made to paragraphs-3 to 5

of Chapter VII of the Criminal Manual.

. It was observed in paragraph-47 of the said

judgment that filing of an affidavit is not an empty

formality. The mandate is that the affidavit should clearly

2 Decided on 14.3.2017 passed in Criminal Revision Application No.432/2015 (Bombay High Court)

9 of 27

10 apl-1505-2019.odt

state what portion of the statement is made on the

declarant's knowledge and what portion of statement is

made on his information and belief. When a particular

portion is not within the declarant's own knowledge, but

is based on the information obtained from others or is

based on documents, the declarant should disclose the

source of the information or his belief.

. It was further observed that, in that case the

verification clause did not disclose that the knowledge of

that particular witness was based on records and he had

not disclosed the source of information as required in

paragraph-5(3 )of Chapter VII of Criminal Manual.

. Shri Aggarwal relied on the judgment of a

Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in

the case of Santokh Singh and Sokha Vs. The State of Punjab 3

which has taken a similar view.

vi. Shri Aggarwal then criticised the impugned order. In that

order, a reference was made to Jaimin's case (supra), but, 3 Decided on 4.12.2002 in Criminal Revision No.883/1989 (High Court of Punjab & Haryana)

10 of 27

11 apl-1505-2019.odt

according to Shri Aggarwal, it was not given its due

importance by the learned judge. It was held that the

provisions of FEO Act had overriding effect and therefore

the application was to proceed for hearing. Having

observed thus, the learned Judge further reasoned that

even if the provisions of section 297 of Cr.P.C. were taken

into consideration, the deponent had stated that the

contents were true and correct to the best of his

knowledge derived from the records. According to Shri

Aggarwal, these two reasons were contrary to each other.

He submitted that learned Judge either could have held

that section 297 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable or could have

held that the requirement of section 297 Cr.P.C. were

complied with. But his observations are contradictory to

each other and therefore the order is not based on sound

reasoning. He submitted that the learned judge has not

dealt with the provisions of the Criminal Manual though

argument was advanced in that behalf and it was referred

to in Jaimin's case (supra), and therefore the matter

11 of 27

12 apl-1505-2019.odt

should be remanded back to him for passing a proper

order. In support of this contention he relied on the

observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Bihar4. In paragraph-9 of the

said order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that

there was no reasoning on the submissions urged by the

learned counsel for the parties and therefore the order

passed by the High Court was not proper.

In the same context, he relied on the

judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of

Yogesh Waman Athavale Vs. Vikram Abasaheb Jadhav5.

vii. His last submission was that this was an important issue

which should have been decided as the preliminary issue

because it goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the court

to entertain such application as it was not supported by a

proper affidavit. In support of this submission, he relied

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

4 Decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.5.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.8/2019. 5 Decided on 11.2.2020 in Contempt Petition No.127/2019 (Bombay High Court)

12 of 27

13 apl-1505-2019.odt

of State through Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi

Vs. Jitender Kumar Singh6

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 :

5. In response to these submissions, Shri Venegavkar

made the following submissions:

i. The FEO Act was enacted for a specific purpose. It was

mainly deterrent in nature and was not punitive. He

submitted that the proceedings can be dropped if the

Applicant appears before the court. Section 4 of FEO

Act lays down the form of application which is

elaborated in Rule 3 of the FEO Rules. Section 11

prescribes the procedure. He submitted that if there is

no procedure prescribed in the Special Act at all, then

only the provisions of Cr.P.C. would apply. But when

there is a special procedure prescribed under the

Special Act, the procedure under Cr.P.C. cannot be

looked at. The special procedure and in particular Rule

6 (2014) 11 SCC 724

13 of 27

14 apl-1505-2019.odt

3 of the FEO Rules are complied with. His most

important submission was that under the FEO Act or

Rules, there was no provision or requirement for filing

an affidavit at all and therefore all the submissions

made by learned counsel for the Applicant had no

relevance. He submitted that Jaimin's case (supra)

actually supports the Respondent No.2's case. In that

case, it was observed that the verification clause did not

disclose that knowledge of the concerned witness was

based on records, whereas in the present case, the

verification clause specifically mentions that knowledge

of the Applicant filing the said application under

Section 4 of the FEO Act was based on records. Thus, in

fact, the observations in Jaimin's case (supra) helps the

Respondent No.2's case that the procedure was properly

followed.

ii. He submitted that section 4 of FEO Act refers to the

reason to believe, for which the Director or the Deputy

Director has to rely on the material in his possession

14 of 27

15 apl-1505-2019.odt

that any individual is a fugitive economic offender. He

can file an application in such form and manner as

prescribed. In the present case, the application itself

refers to the statement of reasons to believe that the

Applicant was a fugitive economic offender, as

specifically mentioned in paragraph-9 of the

application. Therefore the question of belief is clearly

answered in the application itself.

iii. Shri Venegavkar submitted that there was nothing

wrong with the reasoning given by the learned Special

Judge. He took into consideration the alternate

arguments and gave his reasons with reference to

section 297 of Cr.P.C..

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT :

6. In rejoinder to the submissions of Shri Venegavkar ,

Shri Aggarwal further submitted that in all the applications which

are filed in all the courts, an affidavit is necessary. As per the

definition of 'evidence' under section 3 of the Evidence Act, this

application is an 'evidence', and as per the special procedure with

15 of 27

16 apl-1505-2019.odt

reference to this particular application, it was necessary that it was

affirmed with proper verification.

REASONS :

7. Before referring to the facts in the present case, it is

necessary to reproduce certain provisions which are referred to by

both the learned Counsel repeatedly:

. Sections 5 & 297 of Cr.P.C. :

" 5. Saving. - Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force."

"297. Authorities before whom affidavits may be sworn.--- (1) Affidavits to be used before any Court under this Code may be sworn or affirmed before---

(a) any Judge or any Judicial or Executive Magistrate, or

(b) any Commissioner of Oaths appointed by a High Court or Court of Session, or

(c) any notary appointed under the Notaries Act, 1952 (53 of 1952).

(2) Affidavits shall be confined to, and shall state separately, such facts as the deponent is able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the

16 of 27

17 apl-1505-2019.odt

latter case, the deponent shall clearly state the grounds of such belief.

(3) The Court may order any scandalous and irrelevant matter in the affidavit to be struck out or amended."

======

. Clauses 4 & 5 of Chapter VII of the Criminal Manual :

"4. Unless it is otherwise provided, an affidavit may be made by any person having knowledge of the facts deposed to.

5. (1) Every affidavit should clearly specify what portion of the statement is made on the declarant's knowledge and what portion of the statement is made on his information or belief.

(2) When a particular portion is not within the declarant's own knowledge but it is stated from information obtained from others, the declarant must use the expression "I am informed" and if it is made on belief should add "I verily believe it to be true." He must also state the source or ground of the information or belief, and give the name and address of, and sufficiently described for the purpose of identification, the person or persons from whom he had received such information. (3) When the statement rests on facts disclosed in documents or copies of documents procured from any Court or other person, the declarant shall state the source from which they were procured and his information, or belief, as to the truth of the facts disclosed in such documents."

======

. Sections 4, 11, 12, 16, 21 and 22 of the FEO Act :

"4. Application for declaration of fugitive economic offender and procedure therefor. (1) Where the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director

17 of 27

18 apl-1505-2019.odt

authorised by the Director for the purposes of this section, has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that any individual is a fugitive economic offender, he may file an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed in the Special Court that such individual may be declared as a fugitive economic offender.

(2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall contain--

(a) reasons for the belief that an individual is a fugitive economic offender;

(b) any information available as to the whereabouts of the fugitive economic offender;

(c) a list of properties or the value of such properties believed to be the proceeds of crime, including any such property outside India for which confiscation is sought;

(d) a list of properties or benami properties owned by the individual in India or abroad for which confiscation is sought; and

(e) a list of persons who may have an interest in any of the properties listed under clauses

(c) and (d).

(3) The Authorities appointed for the purposes of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003) shall be the Authorities for the purposes of this Act. =====

11. Procedure for hearing application. (1) Where any individual to whom notice has been issued under sub- section (1) of section 10 appears in person at the place and time specified in the notice, the Special Court may terminate the proceedings under this Act.

(2) Where any individual to whom notice has been issued under sub-section (1) of section 10 fails to appear at the place and time specified in the notice, but enters appearance through counsel, the Special Court may in its

18 of 27

19 apl-1505-2019.odt

discretion give a period of one week to file a reply to the application under section 4.

(3) Where any individual to whom notice has been issued under sub-section (1) of section 10 fails to enter appearance either in person or through counsel, and the Special Court is satisfied--

(a) that service of notice has been effected on such party; or

(b) that notice could not be served in spite of best efforts because such individual has evaded service of notice, it may, after recording reasons in writing, proceed to hear the application.

(4) The Special Court may also give any person to whom notice has been issued under sub-section (2) of section 10 a period of one week to file a reply to the application under section 4.

====== "12. Declaration of fugitive economic offender. (1) After hearing the application under section 4, if the Special Court is satisfied that an individual is a fugitive economic offender, it may, by an order, declare the individual as a fugitive economic offender for reasons to be recorded in writing.

(2) On a declaration under sub-section (1), the Special Court may order that any of the following properties stand confiscated to the Central Government--

(a) the proceeds of crime in India or abroad, whether or not such property is owned by the fugitive economic offender; and

(b) any other property or benami property in India or abroad, owned by the fugitive economic offender.

(3) The confiscation order of the Special Court shall, to the extent possible, identify the properties in India or abroad that constitute proceeds of crime which are to be confiscated and in case such properties cannot be identified, quantify the value of the proceeds of crime.

                                                                          19 of 27





                                20                            apl-1505-2019.odt

(4) The confiscation order of the Special Court shall separately list any other property owned by the fugitive economic offender in India which is to be confiscated. (5) Where the Special Court has made an order for confiscation of any property under sub-section (2), and such property is in a contracting State, the Special Court may issue a letter of request to a Court or authority in the contracting State for execution of such order. (6) Every letter of request to be transmitted to a contracting State under sub-section (5) shall be transmitted in such form and manner as the Central Government may, by notification, specify in this behalf. (7) The Special Court may, while making the confiscation order, exempt from confiscation any property which is a proceed of crime in which any other person, other than the fugitive economic offender, has an interest if it is satisfied that such interest was acquired bona fide and without knowledge of the fact that the property was proceeds of crime.

(8) All the rights and title in the confiscated property shall, from the date of the confiscation order, vest in the Central Government, free from all encumbrances. (9) Where on the conclusion of the proceedings, the Special Court finds that the individual is not a fugitive economic offender, the Special Court shall order release of property or record attached or seized under this Act to the person entitled to receive it.

(10) Where an order releasing the property has been made by the Special Court under sub-section (9), the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this behalf may withhold the release of any such property or record for a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of such order, if he is of the opinion that such property is relevant for the appeal proceedings under this Act.

====

16. Rules of evidence. (1) The burden of proof for establishing--

20 of 27

21 apl-1505-2019.odt

(a) that an individual is a fugitive economic offender;

or

(b) that a property is the proceeds of crime or any other property in which the individual alleged to be a fugitive economic offender has an interest, shall be on the Director or the person authorised by the Director to file the application under section 4.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, where any person referred to in sub-section (2) of section 10 claims that any interest in any property was acquired bona fide and without knowledge of the fact that, such property constitutes proceeds of crime, the burden of proving such fact shall lie upon him. (3) The standard of proof applicable to the determination of facts by the Special Court under this Act shall be preponderance of probabilities.

=====

21. Overriding effect. The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force.

=====

22. Application of other laws not barred. The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law for the time being in force."

=====

.Rule 3 of the FEO Rules reads thus :

"3. Form and manner of application for declaring an individual as a fugitive economic offender.--(1) The Director or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall prepare an index containing the following materials, namely:-

21 of 27

22 apl-1505-2019.odt

(i) a copy of a warrant of arrest in relation to prosecution of a Scheduled Offence against the individual believed to be a fugitive economic offender issued by any Court in India;

(ii) a statement of reasons to believe that an individual is a fugitive economic offender;

(iii) a statement on any information available as to the whereabouts of the individual believed to be a fugitive economic offender;

(iv) any proof of effort undertaken to bring the individual believed to be a fugitive economic offender back to India;

(v) a list of properties or value of such properties believed to be the proceeds of crime, including any such property outside India for which confiscation is sought;

(vi) a list of properties or benami property owned by the individual believed to be a fugitive economic offender in India or abroad for which confiscation is sought;

(vii) a copy of a confiscation order issued by the Adjudicating Authority under the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, if any;

(viii) a list of persons who may have an interest in any of the properties listed under clauses (v) and(vi).

(2) The index and material prepared under sub-rule (1) shall be signed on each page and forwarded to the Special Court in a sealed envelope, indicating a reference number and date of despatch.

(3) The Director or the authorised officer, as the case may be, shall maintain registers and other records such as acknowledgement slip register and dak register and shall ensure that necessary entries are made in the register immediately as soon as a copy of the application along with the materials are forwarded to the Special Court."

22 of 27

23 apl-1505-2019.odt

8. The verification clause below the application

preferred under Section 4 of the FEO Act is as follows :

"VERIFICATION I, Kapil Raj, S/o. Mr. Om Singh, Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai Zonal Office, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Mumbai, having its office at 4 th Floor, "Kaiser-I-Hind", Currimbhoy Road, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400001, the applicant herein above do hereby solemnly affirm and state that whatever is stated in the preceding paragraphs of the above application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge derived from record."

. The Deputy Director is very specific about his

knowledge and it is mentioned in the verification that whatever

was stated in the said application was true and correct to the best

of his knowledge derived from the records. Section 297 of Cr.P.C.

mentions that the deponent making the affidavit shall separately

state such facts as he was able to prove from his own knowledge

and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true,

and in the case of his belief, he has to state the grounds of such

belief. In the present case, the verification mentions that the

application is filed to the best of the deponent's knowledge derived

23 of 27

24 apl-1505-2019.odt

from the records. He has nowhere stated that he was filing the

application based on his own knowledge, but it was based on his

knowledge derived from the records. Therefore, there cannot be

any infirmity in this type of verification wherein the application is

filed based on the records which the deponent had perused and he

believed it to be true to the best of his knowledge. This also

sufficiently complies with the requirement of clauses 4 & 5 of the

Criminal Manual. The entire application was based on the facts

derived from the records. There were no different categories which

could be restricted to his own knowledge or to his belief. He has

given source of his knowledge as the records. Therefore, even the

source was properly disclosed. Therefore, there is nothing wrong

with the verification.

9. Though Shri Aggarwal found fault with the

consideration of alternate arguments, as rightly submitted by Shri

Venegavkar, the Special Court could consider the alternate

arguments, and I do not see any infirmity in that behalf.

                                                                                 24 of 27





                                  25                     apl-1505-2019.odt

10. I also find substance in the submissions of Shri

Venegavkar that the required format of the application was

complied with by the Respondent No.2 herein. Section 4 of FEO Act

refers to an application in such form and manner as may be

prescribed. This form and manner is prescribed under Rule 3 of the

FEO Rules, which are reproduced hereinabove. I find that the

application is filed in the format laid down in the said Rule 3.

Therefore, there is sufficient compliance with the requirement of

Section 4 of the FEO Act.

11. Therefore, accepting the arguments of Shri Aggarwal

that a thing which is directed to be done in a particular way has to

be done in that way only, in the present case, I find that the

application is properly filed under Section 4 of FEO Act.

12. As rightly submitted by Shri Venegavkar, when

special procedure is provided under the Special Act, i.e. the FEO

Act in this case, this procedure will have to be followed, and in this

case the said procedure has been followed. Section 5 of Cr.P.C. gives

more clarity to this issue. Section 5 of Cr.P.C. provides that nothing

25 of 27

26 apl-1505-2019.odt

contained in the Cr.P.C., in the absence of specific provision to the

contrary, affect any special law or any special form of procedure

prescribed by any other law. Thus, the procedure prescribed under

FEO Act is not affected by the provisions of Cr.P.C..

13. In fact, Section 21 of the FEO Act gives an overriding

effect to the FEO Act and therefore even as per Section 5 of Cr.P.C.

and also as per Section 21 of the FEO Act, the special procedure

prescribed under the FEO Act will not get affected by any provision

under Cr.P.C..

14. In this context, the preamble of the Act is significant.

It states that this is an Act to provide for measures to deter fugitive

economic offenders from evading the process of law in India by

staying outside the jurisdiction of Indian courts, to preserve the

sanctity of the rule of law in India and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto. Therefore, section 4 of the FEO Act

and Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are made to further the objective of

this Act and they cannot be bypassed by taking recourse to the

26 of 27

27 apl-1505-2019.odt

other provisions of Cr.P.C. to contend that the affidavit was not

proper.

15. Looking at all these aspects of this matter, firstly I do

not find any infirmity in the verification and even otherwise I find

that all the requirements under Section 4 of the FEO Act and under

Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are properly complied with in this case.

Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned

order and hence the application is rejected. The interim relief

stands vacated. In view of disposal of the main Application, nothing

survives in the pending Interim Applications and same are also

disposed of.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

27 of 27