JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order on charge dated 23.12.1998 as well as the charge of the same date.
2. By a detailed order in Criminal Revision Petition 52/1999, the same order on charge and charge was considered by this Court. The petitioners in that revision petition have been discharged of the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code. It has been held that the Vishwa Dharmayatan Trust, of which the present petitioner was a trustee, was found, prima facie, to have committed the offence under Section 23 read with Section 6 of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and Section 25 read with Section 13 of the said Act. Since the detailed reasons are given in the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition 52/1999, the same need not be repeated herein. The only additional circumstance that Mr. Mathur, the learned senior counsel who appears for the petitioner herein, points out that the present petitioner cannot be implicated under Section 23 of the said Act and there are no allegations against him to bring him within the four corners of Section 26 of the said Act. Therefore, in his individual capacity, the petitioner is liable to be discharged.
3. The learned Counsel for the CBI was also heard.
4. Section 23 of the said Act reads as under:
23. Punishment for the contravention of any provision of the Act.- (1) Whosoever accepts, or assists any person, political party or organization in accepting, any foreign contribution or any currency from a foreign source, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule made there under, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(2) Whosoever accepts any foreign hospitality in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule made there under shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
By reading the aforesaid Section, it appears that it pertains to a person who either accepts by himself any foreign contribution or currency from a foreign source or such person assists any other person, political party or organization in accepting such foreign contribution or currency from a foreign source. Therefore, there are two categories of persons within this provision. The first category is of those persons who accept, in their own names, foreign contribution or currency from a foreign source. The second category is of those persons who do not accept contribution in their own names but assist other persons, political parties or organizations in accepting such foreign contributions. Mr. Mathur submitted that the present petitioner, even as per the allegations, has not accepted any foreign contribution or currency from a foreign source. Therefore, he does not fall in the first category of persons covered under Section 23 of the said Act. Insofar as the second category of persons is concerned, such persons must assist any other person, political party or organization in the acceptance of foreign contribution or currency from a foreign source. This also, according to Mr. Mathur, has not taken placed inasmuch as there is no allegation of the present petitioner assisting any other person or a political party or an organization in accepting any foreign contribution or currency from a foreign source. As such, according to Mr. Mathur, the present petitioner does not fall in any of these two categories. I am in agreement with this submission of Mr. Mathur that Vishwa Dharmayatan Trust is neither a person nor a political party and nor an organization.
5. Insofar as the charge under Section 25 of the said Act is concerned, I feel that this is also not made out against the present petitioner inasmuch as it has been framed in connection with the provisions of Section 13 of the said Act, which pertains to associations and not to individuals. Therefore, the charge under Section 25 of the said Act is also not made out, insofar as the present petitioner is concerned.
6. Coming to the liability created by virtue of Section 26 of the said Act, Mr. Mathur submitted that no such liability has been mentioned in the order on charge or in the charge-sheet. The learned Counsel for the CBI, at this juncture, submitted that an opportunity may be granted to him to move an appropriate application before the learned CMM for including the present petitioner by virtue of the liability created under Section 26 of the said Act inasmuch as there is material on record because the present petitioner was the authorized signatory of the Society for three of its accounts in which foreign contributions were received.
7. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be discharged of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, namely, Section 120-B, 406 IPC as well as under Section 23 and 25 of the said Act, as framed. It will be open to the respondent/CBI to move an appropriate application for including the provisions of Section 26 of the said Act so as to bring in the petitioner within the liability created there under. With these observations, this revision petition stands disposed of. In view of the above order and the position as it exists today, the bail bonds in respect of the petitioner as well as the sureties stand discharged.