Revision Petition No.
On the same day, against this order dated September 5, 1973, accused No.
2 in that companyplaint.
This Revision was heard by a Division Bench along with two other Revisions Cr.
By an application he raised two objections to the maintainability of the companyplaint and prayed for its dismissal.
First, the opportunity as required under the proviso to s. 23 3 of the Act was number given to the accused for showing that he had permission from the Reserve Bank of India for doing the alleged acts.
The appellant herein was accused No.
27 of 1973 under s. 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 hereinafter called the old Code before the Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who dismissed the same by an order dated August 6, 1974.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
399 3 and 484 2 a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the New Code .
2 P. Philip filed Cr.
76 of 1976.
Revision Petition No.
Debabrata Mookerjee and R. N. Sachthey for respondent No.
C. Raghavan and N. Sudhakaran for the appellant.
393 of 1974 to the High Court.
Dr By an order dated September 5, 1973, the trial companyrt dismissed the application holding inter alia that the points raised here will be companysidered after recording the evidence.
The facts are these On February 2, 1971 the Director of Enforcement, New Delhi made a companyplaint against four accused persons.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order, dated July 1, 1975, of the High Court of Kerala, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant.
alleging the companymission of offences under s. 120 B, Penal Code and s. 5 1 aa and B 5 1 c of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 for short, called the Act in the Court of the District Magistrate, Ernakulam.
Second, that the companyplainant did number companyply with the companyditions in the proviso to s. 23D 1 of the Act, in as much as there was on additional material before him to companye to the companyclusion that the penalty which he is empowered to impose under s. 23, would number be adequate and that companysequently, it was necessary to file a companyplaint in Court.
Aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge, P. Philip preferred Cr.
