JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Crl.Rev.No.45/2001 dated 27.2.2002 whereby the learned Judge while adjudicating upon an order dated 8.12.1999 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, whereby the learned Magistrate discharged K.C. Nagpal and held that the order of discharge was bad.
-2- CRL.REV.P.510/2002
2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that Sh. K.C. Nagpal – the petitioner herein, was an Assistant Manager in the UCO Bank, during the relevant time and the co-accused had deposited sums of foreign exchange which were below the limit of US $ 10,000 (ten thousand US dollars), in one go. He submits that the complaint filed by the Enforcement Directorate alleges negligence against him for permitting foreign exchange to be deposited in contravention of Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and thereby rendered himself liable to violation of Section 56 of the Act.
3. Counsel submits that in the material on record it is no where mentioned that Sh. K.C. Nagpal knew any of the accused persons or had any personal motive in allowing the deposit of foreign exchange. He submits that the act was done in the normal course of banking business and duty. The petitioner permitted the deposit on different dates, of amounts which were less than US $ 10,000. He further submits that the customer himself being the holder of the account tendered the foreign exchange notes during is temporary visits to India and, therefore, there was no question of doubting that the deposit of foreign exchange is in violation of the Foreign Exchange
-3- CRL.REV.P.510/2002
Regulation Act. Also the statements recorded under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act of Shri. Aditya Aggarwal and Shri S.C.Sharma do not disclose any involvement of Sh.K.C.Nagpal. The only allegation proved against him is that he was working as Manager in the Bank which in itself cannot foist a criminal liability. Counsel also submits that there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had in any manner abetted the offence sought to have been committed by the principle accused
4. Nobody appears for the Directorate of Enforcement in spite of the matter having been on Board for a considerable length of time. However, I have gone through the judgment under challenge as also the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate discharging the petitioner. I find the judgment under challenge insofar as it holds that once summons were issued on the basis that there was sufficient material to proceed against the accused he could not have been discharged is incorrect inasmuch as Section 244 and 245 of the code of Criminal Procedure envisages such an eventuality, where after summoning, an accused person is able to show on the material available that no case is made out against him, he is entitled to a discharge. In the present case, this is exactly what -4- CRL.REV.P.510/2002 the petitioner has been able to prove. Therefore, there was no impropriety in the order of the Magistrate discharging the petitioner. As far as analysing the material on record is concerned, it appears to me that the petitioner by virtue of his office was obliged to receive deposits of foreign exchange provided they were being deposited by a genuine person and the amount was not beyond US $ 10,000. In the present case, the depositor of amount was the holder of the account himself and, therefore, was a genuine person. The account holder deposited amounts less than US $ 10,000 at one go and deposited them at various intervals. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the petitioner was required to keep a tag on his transactions and or in any manner abetted violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
5. In this view of the matter, I find the criticism of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of the judgment of the judgment of the learned Magistrate not correct.
6. Having carefully gone through the material on record and the judgment under challenge, I set aside the judgment
-5- CRL.REV.P.510/2002
dated 27.02.2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.Rev.45/2001 and restore the order dated 8.12.1999 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. With this Criminal Revision Petition 510/2002 is allowed and disposed of.