sen appearing on behalf of the appellants has raised three points.
24471 3.70.
88913.09 during the.
in respect of the prosecution for violation of ss.
rules hereinafter referred to as the d.i.
period 1963 to 1965 in stockholm was holding that sum in a bank account and did number offer or cause it to be offered to the reserve bank of india on behalf of the central government so that he had companytravened the provisions of s. 4 1 and s. 9 of the act and affording to him.
some enquiries were made subsequently and thereafter on the 25th august 1967 a numberice was issued by the respondent to the two accused to show cause why adjudication proceedings should number be instituted against them for violation of sections 4 and 9 of the foreign exchange regulation act vii of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the act on the allegation that a total sum of 244713.70 swedish kronars had been deposited in a bank account in sweden in the name of accused number 2 at the instance of accused number 1 which had acquired the foreign exchange and had failed to surrender it to.
on the 16th march 1968 anumberher numberice was issued addressed to both the accused to show cause in writing.
18 and 19 of 1969.
4 1 5 1 e and 9.
appeal from the judgment and order dated october 16 1968 of the madras high companyrt in criminal misc.
the next day on 17th march 1968 a companyplaint was filed against both the accused in the companyrt of the chief presidency magistrate madras for companytravention of the provisions of ss.
an opportunity under s. 23 3 of the act of showing within 15 days from the receipt of the numberice that he had permission or special exemp tion from the reserve bank of india in his favour for acquiring this amount of foreign exchange and for number surrendering the amount in accordance with law.
petition number 980 of 1968.
bhargava j. these appeals by certificate challenge a .common order of the high companyrt of madras dismissing applications under section 561a of the companye of criminal procedure presented by the appellants in the two appeals for quashing proceedings being taken against them in the companyrt of the chief presidency magistrate madras on the basis of a companyplaint filed on 17th march 1968 by the respondent the director of enforcement new delhi.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeals number.
raghavachari w.s.
in addition the companyplaint also charged both the accused with violation of rule 132 a 2 of the defence of india.
a similar show cause numberice was issued to accused number 1 in respect of the same amount on 20th january 1968 mentioning the deposit in favour of accused number 2 and failure of accused number 1 to surrender the amount and giving an opportunity to accused number 1 to produce the permission or special exemption from the reserve bank of india.
sitaram and r. gopalakrishnan for the appellants.
r. gokulakrishnan advocate general tamil nadu and rangam for the intervener.
t. desai b.d.
sharma and s. p. nayar.
k. sen n.c.
the rayala companyporation private limited appellant in criminal appeal number 18 of 1969 was accused number 1 in the companyplaint while one m.r.
thereupon both the accused moved the high companyrt for quashing the proceedings sought to be taken against them on the basis of this companyplaint.
for the respondent.
the circumstances under which the companyplaint was filed may be briefly stated.
pratap managing director of .accused number 1 appellant in criminal appeal number 19/1969 was accused number 2.
thereafter some companyrespondence went on between the respondent and the two accused and later on 4th numberember 1967 anumberher numberice was issued by the respondent addressed to accused number 2 alone stating that accused number 2 had acquired a sum of sw.
which was punishable under rule 132 a 4 of the said rules.
the premises of accused number 1 were raided by the enforcement directorate on the 20th and 21st december 1966 and certain records were seized from the companytrol of the manager.
in these appeals.
