P.C. As the Respondent companyld number be served, the Registry of this Court was directed to reissue summons to the Respondent which were to be served through the Special Court Economic Offences , Bangalore, Karnataka.
The Respondent was represented in the said proceedings by an Advocate.
The Appellant preferred a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 Cr.
P.C., the Bailiff affixed the summons on the door of the Respondents house at his last known address.
It was held that the companyplainant failed to prove the address of the Respondent by adducing any evidence.
Mr. Bom R. Munshi and Mr.Clarence Fernandes who were employees of M s Pheroze Famrose, were summoned during the companyrse of enquiry and they admitted that foreign exchange worth Rs.50 crores was released on the basis of bogus documents by the Money Changer.
Summons were issued under Section 40 of FERA on 23.10.1997 directing the Respondent and two others to appear before the Enforcement Officer, Bangalore on 24.10.1997.
By a judgment dated 20.12.2006, the Special Court Economic Offences , Bangalore dismissed the companyplaint and acquitted the Respondent for the offence punishable under Section 56 1 of FERA, 1973.
The Special Court followed the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Itty v. Assistant Director, reported in 1992 58 E.L.T. 172 Ker .
The Respondent is deemed to have been served.
It was held by the Special Court that the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate were number duly served on the Respondent personally.
Signature Not Verified Notice was issued to the Respondent on 24.08.2012.
None appeared for the Respondent today.
Digitally signed by SANJAY KUMAR Date 2017.08.17 161824 IST Reason As service companyld number be effected in the numbermal companyrse, by an order dated 08.05.2014, this Court directed the Appellant to take appropriate steps for effecting the service on the Respondent as per the procedure prescribed under Section 65 of Chapter VI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Cr.
Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2007 was filed by the Appellant assailing the said judgment of the Special Court dated 20.12.2006 in CC No.86 of 1998.
P.C. requesting for setting aside the order passed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2007 which came to be rejected as being number maintainable.
The High Court dismissed the appeal by following the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Ittys case supra , holding that disobedience of summons for appearance does number amount to companytravention of the provisions of FERA, 1973.
As the authorities did number prove the valid service of summons on the accused either personally or by substituted service, according to the Trial Court, the companytravention of Section 40 3 FERA did number arise.
The said judgments of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2007 dated 29.07.2011 and judgment in Criminal Revision Petition No.1177 of 2011 dated 10.01.2012 are subject matter of these appeals.
The submission on behalf of the companyplainant that service of summons on the Respondent was effected by affixing a companyy of the summons on door of the house of the Respondent was number accepted by the Special Court.
It was alleged in the companyplaint that M s Pheroze Framrose, situated at Richmond Circle, Bangalore which was an authorised Money Changer, indulged in releasing substantial foreign exchange in companytravention of the laws.
The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate FERA , Bangalore filed a companyplaint against the Respondent and two others for an offence punishable under Section 56 1 ii of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the FERA 1973 .
The case against the two other accused were split up and they were directed to face trial.
NAGESWARA RAO, J. Leave granted.
These Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 29.07.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.940 of 2007 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore and the judgment dated 10.01.2012 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1177 of 2011.
5468 and 5629 of 1996 dated 1 8 1997 and was disposed of by the learned Judge of the Madras High Court by judgment dated 1 8 1997.
As the Respondent and two others did number appear before the Enforcement Officer, CC No.86 of 1998 was filed before the Special Court Economic Offences , Bangalore by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate FERA , Bangalore.
A report was received from the Special Court Economic Offences , Bangalore that the Respondent was number available at the time when the Bailiff visited the last known address to serve the summons.
The Respondent and others failed to respond to the summons.
