Delhi High Court
Mani Singh Bhalla vs Enforcement Directorate on 15 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: May 15, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 5077/2017 & CRL.M.A. 19990/2017
MANI SINGH BHALLA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dhruv Gupta and
Mr. Shaishav Manu, Advocates
versus
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Amit Mahajan, CGSC with
Mr. Dhruv Pande and Ms. Shreya
Sinha, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. Quashing of revisional court's order of 17th November, 2017 and
trial court's orders of 11th May, 2017 and 30th May, 2017 is sought in this
petition. Trial court vide order of 30th May, 2017 has put petitioner on
trial for the offences under Section 18(2) r/w Section 18(3) of Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and under Section 56 of Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as 'FERA').
Petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the trial court's order before
revisional court.
2. The pleas urged in this petition are that in view of the Circular of
5th July, 2001 issued under Section 56 of FERA, there can be no
prosecution if the amount involved is less than ₹2 crores. Attention of this
Court was drawn to a decision of a Coordinate Bench of this court in
Rare Creations Limited vs. Union of India 2010 (170) DLT 234 to
submit that there can be no prosecution if the non-realisation of export
proceeds is less than ₹2 crores. So, it was submitted that there can be no
prosecution, as the offence in question already stands compounded.
Reliance was placed upon a report of 22nd May, 2003 of the Directorate
of Enforcement to submit that there were six G.R. Forms of the company
in question, with which the bank statement had been annexed. According
to petitioner's counsel, this indicates that only six G.R. Forms pertaining
to the company in question were outstanding and sufficient explanation
had been tendered by petitioner in respect of aforesaid six G.R. Forms.
So, it was submitted that the instant proceedings against petitioner ought
to be quashed.
3. On the contrary, learned CGSC for respondent-Enforcement
Directorate submitted that after passing of the impugned order, trial court
has already recorded evidence of three witnesses, out of six witnesses and
the case is now listed before the trial court on 24 th May, 2019 for
recording of the remaining evidence and the pleas taken herein are
required to be tested at trial. It is submitted that Circular of 5 th July, 2001
sought to be relied upon by petitioner, is not traceable and its
applicability in case of petitioner is also disputed.
4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned orders and the decision
cited, I find that since evidence of three witnesses out of six, has been
already recorded and the case is now fixed in this month before the trial
court for recording of the remaining evidence, therefore, the legality of
the impugned order is not required to be tested, as the trial of the case has
fairly progressed and existence of Circular of 5th July, 2001 is yet to be
established. Moreover, the submissions advanced on behalf of petitioner
are required to be considered, after the evidence is led in this case.
5. Accordingly, this petition and the application are disposed of with
liberty to petitioner to urge the pleas taken herein before the trial court at
the stage of final arguments. It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice
either side before trial court.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
MAY 15, 2019
v
