IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 4538 of 2003()
1. K. PREMAN, S/O. KUMARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER
Dated :25/03/2008
O R D E R
A.K.BASHEER, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Crl.M.C.No.4538 OF 2003
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 25th day of March 2008
ORDER
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the
Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the
respondent, I am of the view that this petition filed under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be
disposed of without going into the merit of the contentions
raised by the petitioner.
2. Petitioner is being tried before the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate’s Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam
for the offence punishable under Section 57 of the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 49 of
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 on the allegation
that he had failed to remit the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed
on him under Annexure-B order passed by the Assistant
Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Calicut.
3. According to the petitioner, there was no willful
default on his part as alleged by the prosecution. In fact
Crl.M.C.No.4538 OF 2003
:: 2 ::
petitioner had preferred Annexure-C appeal against
Annexure-B order before the appellate authority which was
registered as appeal No.298/96 as revealed from Annexure-E
communication from the said authority. It is contended by the
learned counsel that the prosecution was totally misconceived
and premature.
4. Anyhow, it is brought to my notice that the penalty of
Rs.50,000/- had been recovered from the petitioner along with
other charges. The receipts issued by the Tahsildar,
Vadakara have been made available for perusal. Learned
Standing Counsel also submits that the amount has been
recovered.
5. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find
any reason why the prosecution launched against the
petitioner should be allowed to continue any further.
However, as regards the question whether petitioner would
be liable to pay any fine in the changed circumstance, I am of
the view that the matter has to be remitted back to the trial
court. Ordered accordingly.
Crl.M.C.No.4538 OF 2003
:: 3 ::
In the peculiar facts and circumstances, petitioner shall
be allowed to be represented by his counsel before the trial
court, if such a motion is made on his behalf. The learned
Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in
accordance with law. Petitioner shall appear before the trial
court through his counsel on June 16, 2008.
(A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE)
jes