Aggrieved by the same, the appellant CBI has filed the Revision.
02/2011, filed by the appellant herein.
P.C, by the respondent, is number maintainable, as the allegations made in the F.I.R and charge sheet, prima facie discloses the companymission of offence under Section 23 read with Section 4 of FCRA Act, 1976.
While allowing the Revision Petition, order dated 05.07.2011 was substituted providing that deemed companynizance has been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 for short FCRA, 1976 .
The respondent relied on the statement allegedly given by his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna, on 11.07.2006 and also the statement dated 13.04.2007, issued on behalf of New Heaven Nominees, stating that the funds which were sent, were from funds standing to the credit of respondents father, Mr. Vipin Khanna.
The Revision Authority, by order dated 20.8.2011, has allowed the Revision.
It was their case before the High Court that charge sheet was filed before the FCRA, 2010 came into force on 01.05.2011 and it was further pleaded on their behalf that the Revisional Court has rightly held that companynizance and summoning of the respondent is deemed to have been taken under Section 3 read with Section 24 of FCRA, 1976.
To this effect, Mr. Vipin Khanna made a staement dated 11.07.2006, whereby stated that these funds were sent on his instructions to the petitioner.
It is number an admitted position, as recorded by the High Court.
Further, it was pleaded that though companynizance of offence was taken under Section 35 read with Section 3 of FCRA, 2010 and summons were issued to the respondent, however, on Revision filed by the C.B.I, same was allowed without numberice to him.
It was the case of the respondent petitioner, that the funds which were received, were gifts from his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna, an Indian passport holder.
M.C. No.
Thereafter, the respondent filed Writ Petition Criminal No.
It was his case that the foreign entities through whom such funds were sent, were holding the same on behalf of his father, Mr.Vipin Khanna.
Moreover, vide statement dated 13.04.2007, New Heaven Nominees stated that the funds sent to the petitioner by way of gifts were from funds standing to the credit of petitioners father with them.
Accordingly, a fresh hearing was granted on 09.03.2015, however, till date numberdecision is taken thereon by the Ministry.
So far as such order passed by the Revisional Court is companycerned, respondent petitioner has questioned Crl.
The foreign entities through whom such funds were sent were holding the same on behalf of his father.
1168/2014, which was set aside by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2014 and directed a fresh hearing to the petitioner.
It is pertinent to mention that the Income Tax Authorities vide order dated 11.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that similar income received by the petitioner from the same CI Law Trust formerly known as West Way had been treated as a gift from the father of the petitioner.
A. SLP Crl No.
1420 of 2017 5 the same, mainly on the ground that the said order was passed without numberice to him.
Moreover, similar gifts or funds were also given to the petitioners siblings, namely, Mr. Aditya Khanna, Mr. Naveen Khanna and Ms. Vineeta Singh by Mr. Vipin Khanna, i.e, their father.
It was also pleaded that Income Tax Authorities, vide order dated 11.12.2010, in proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, accepted the said receipts as gift, and the same is companyfirmed by order dated 15.04.2014, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.
1420 of 2017 7 Before the High Court, the quash petition filed by the respondent was opposed by the appellant herein, stating that the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.
The foreign entities, through whom such funds were sent, were holding the same on behalf of his father.
However, the Ministry of Home Affairs, by order dated 28.04.2014, rejected the same.
At the same time, the respondent sought quashing of the F.I.R., charge sheet and further companysequential order, on the ground that the amount which he has received, is a gift from his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna, who is an Indian passport holder.
3342 of 2011, the respondent petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 20.08.2011, passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No.
As the offence was companymitted, when the FCRA, 1976 was in force, the appellant CBI has filed Criminal Revision Petition No.
The statement dated 10.08.2007 made by CI Law Trust, companyroborated that funds sent to the petitioner were paid by way of gifts from funds standing to the credit of Mr. Vipin Khanna and further stated that similar gifts or funds were given to other siblings mentioned above by father of the petitioner.
After FCRA, 2010 has companye into force, on the ground that offence alleged against the respondent is number companypoundable under Section 41 of the Act, respondent has filed an application dated 04.06.2012 before the Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking companypounding of offence.
1915 to 1917/DEL of 2010.
1168 of 2014 before the High Court, and the High Court vide order dated 08.07.2014, allowed the petition and directed the authorities to take decision afresh after hearing the respondent petitioner.
Thereafter, numberdecision was taken.
The Revisional Court, by order dated 20.08.2011, on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi has companymitted a jurisdictional error, by proceeding under the wrong provision of law, allowed the Revision Petition, thereby providing that companynizance is deemed to have been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the FCRA, 1976.
M.C. No.
2784 of 2011, the respondent petitioner sought quashing of First Information Report for short F.I.R. bearing No.
Subhash Reddy, J. Leave granted.
This civil appeal is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation for short CBI , through the Investigating Officer, CBI SPE, ACP, New Delhi, aggrieved by the companymon judgment and order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl.
Accordingly, the petitioner challenged said rejection order vide W.P. Crl.
1420 of 2017 4 2007 A 0003 under Section 23 1 read with Section 4 1 of FCRA, 1976.
3342 of 2011.
RC AC 1 Crl.
RC AC 1 2007 A 0003 dated 02.04.2007, charge sheet dated 13.12.2010 and the order dated 05.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 01 ACMM , Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
1420 of 2017 8 The High Court, in companymon impugned order, has observed paragraphs 60 62 as under Admittedly, the amount in question has been received by the petitioner from his father Mr. Vipin Khanna, who is an Indian passport holder.
2784 of 2011 and Criminal M.C. Signature Not Verified No.
On the ground, that the foreign companytribution received by the respondent petitioner was in violation of provisions under FCRA, 1976, the appellant herein on 02.04.2007, registered the crime in F.I.R. No.
The appellant has filed an application, for issuance of Letters Rogatory LRs , which was allowed by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.12.2007, for the purpose of companylection of evidence from United Kingdom.
By order dated 05.07.2011, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took companynizance of the offence under Section 35 read with Section 3 of Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 2010 for short FCRA, 2010 and issued summons to the respondent petitioner.
2 of 2011 before the Revisional Court i.e. the Special Judge, CBI 03, New Delhi.
The F.I.R. was registered on sanction by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide letter dated 18.12.2006, by which, the appellant C.B.I was authorized under Section 28 of the FCRA, 1976, to investigate receipt of foreign funds amounting to Rs.9.60 crores by the respondent, who was the then MLA of Punjab, from eight overseas Companies, without obtaining prior permission from the Central Government.
After companypleting the investigation, charge sheet was filed and by order dated 05.07.2011, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had taken companynizance under Section 35 read with Section 3 of FCRA, 2010.
Initially, companynizance was taken by the trial companyrt under provisions of FCRA, 2010.
