Delhi High Court
Pramod Kumar Gola vs Directorate Of Enforcement on 24 April, 2012
Author: M. L. Mehta
* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 118/2012
Date of Decision: 24.04.2012
PRAMOD KUMAR GOLA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Akishay Anand with Mr.
Deepak Kumar and Ms Mansha
Anand, Advocates.
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, Advocate
with Mr. Rajat Manchanda,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA
M.L. MEHTA, J. (Oral)
1. This revision petition is filed under section 397 Cr. P.C. read with
section 401/482 Cr. P.C. assailing the order dated 31.01.2012 of the
learned ASJ, Patiala House District Court, New Delhi.
2. The petitioner was facing prosecution in a criminal complaint
under section 56 Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. Charges had
been framed against the petitioner on 30.07.2001 and while framing the
charges, the learned ACMM had fixed four dates for concluding the
prosecution evidence. The respondent /department had examined two
witnesses. However, one of its witnesses namely Mr. Arun Sharma, Ex.
E.O. failed to appear on 13.10.2010 despite service of summons. The
learned MM closed the evidence of the department. The department
challenged the same in revision petition before the ASJ, who vide the
impugned order allowed the petition and granted one opportunity as
final to examine Mr. Arun Sharma at the responsibility of the
department subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The said order is
assailed by the petitioner in this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the department and perused the record.
4. The main ground on which the impugned order is assailed is that
the learned ASJ did not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the
ACMM whereby the evidence of the department was closed, but still
had given an opportunity to the department for examination of their
witness Mr. Arun Sharma. The impugned order is alleged to be illegal
having been passed in cryptic manner. It is also submitted that the case
is of the year 1987 and the ACMM was right in closing the evidence of
the prosecution after giving as many as four opportunities.
5. There is no doubt that the case is of the year 1987 and has been
delayed considerably. However, the charges came to be framed only on
30.07.2011. It was because of the fact that the case was of the year
1987 that four dates were given by the ACMM for conclusion of the
prosecution evidence. It is also seen that the ACMM had not only
ordered on 30.7.2011 for service, but, also attendance of the witnesses to
be the responsibility of the prosecution. On last of the four dates i.e. on
13.10.2011, which was fixed for examination of the prosecution witness
as per the order dated 13.07.2011, one witness was present and
examined as PW-4. Mr. Arun Sharma, who was the last prosecution
witness, was not present despite service. Since Mr. Arun Sharma was
not only cited witness of the prosecution, but was not present on
13.10.2011 despite service, order of closing of the prosecution evidence
by the ACMM does not appear to be in the interest of justice. This is
irrespective of the fact that it was the responsibility of the prosecution to
serve the witness and make him available for examination. In such
circumstances, the impugned order of the ASJ granting one more
opportunity to the prosecution to examine Mr. Arun Sharma on its
responsibility and subject to cost seems to be just and appropriate. There
is neither any illegality nor any infirmity in the impugned order. The
petitioner is not going to be prejudiced by the examination of the cited
witness who is to be produced by the prosecution at its own
responsibility.
6. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
M.L. MEHTA, J.
APRIL 24, 2012
awanish
