In respect of second and third dates, the appellant had responded and informed about his inability to appear and for the last date, summons was number as per procedure, i.e., by registered post.
The proceedings of the criminal cases instituted against the accused respondents on the basis of the companyplaints filed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports and Exports are, therefore, quashed.
Since the appellant failed to appear in response to summons issued more than once, a companyplaint dated 8th March, 2000 under Section 56 of the Act was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.
Against the said order, Criminal Appeal No.515 of 2004 was pending in the High Court.
Thereafter, it was stated that withdrawal of the companyplaint may have impact on other matters and for that reason withdrawal was number possible.
Approval was later sought from Finance Ministry for payment on 19th June, 1996, which was rejected on 4th February, 1999.
He has placed before us companyies of the orders passed by the Additional Director General of picForeign Trade on 16 8 1993 and also by the Appellate Committee Cell, Ministry of Commerce, Government of India on 13 3 1997 by which the appeals preferred by the respondents were allowed by the Appellate Committee and the accused respondents were exonerated.
The appellant challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 9th August, 2001 in above Criminal Complaint No.16/1 of 2000 and also sought quashing of proceedings in the said companyplaint before the High Court by filing Criminal Revision Petition No.554 of 2001 on the ground that willful default of the appellant companyld number have been inferred and that there was number application of mind in the issuance of summons as well as in framing the charge which was in violation of procedure laid down under Section 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The Appellate Board dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the Department on 16th March, 2004.
The charge related to failure of the appellant to appear on four occasions, i.e., 27th September, 1999, 8th November,1999, 26th November, 1999 and 3rd January, 2000.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the material on record summoned the appellant and framed charge against him under Section 56 of the Act.
Brief facts necessary for decision of this appeal are that the appellant was summoned by the Chief Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 the Act with his passport and companyrespondence relating to a transaction with Flavio Briatore of M s. Benetton Formula Ltd., London, to which the appellant, as Chairman of United Breweries Ltd., was a party.
Still, show cause numberice dated 13th March, 2001 was issued to which reply was given and the adjudicating officer vide order dated 10th January, 2002 dropped the proceedings on merits.
Allegation against the appellant was that he entered into an agreement dated 1st December, 1995 with the earlier mentioned English Company for advertisement of Kingfisher brand name on racing cars during Formula I World Championships for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 providing for fee payable.
Having regard to the material existing against the respondents and the reasons and findings given in the aforesaid orders, we are of the opinion that numberuseful purpose would be served by the trial of the accused respondents in the criminal companyrt at this stage.
However, the question whether the number companypliance was deliberate was required to be examined.
During pendency of the companyplaint, the Act FERA was repealed on 1st June, 2000.
The companyplaint was filed on 8th March, 2000.
Requisite permission of the Reserve Bank of India was number taken which was in violation of provisions of Sections 47 1 2 , 9 1 c and 8 1 of the Act.
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 21st May, 2007 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.554 of 2001.
