Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 601 OF 2009
C.B.I. ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Pratap Chandra Reddy ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment
and order dated 04.10.2006 passed by the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision
Petition No.115 of 1999 whereby the High Court
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.12.11
17:50:52 IST
Reason:
1
allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent
herein.
2. By order dated 26.03.2007, this Court issued
notice limited to the question on the correctness of
the High Court's order so far as it relates to the
applicability of Foreign Contribution (Regulation)
Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “FCRA”).
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties
and also perused the written submissions filed by
the respondent.
4. It is not in dispute that the matter is sub
judice and pending in the Court of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in a case titled CBI
vs. Nemi Chand Jain and others in relation to
certain offences alleged to have been committed by
the respondent, which are punishable under the
2
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as
“IPC”) and FCRA.
5. In our view, the issue with regard to the
applicability of the provisions of the FCRA to the
case at hand can be decided more properly only
after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution
and the material, if any, is brought on record by
means of evidence against the appellant in the case.
6. At the initial stage of the proceedings in this
case, it does not appear appropriate or possible to
probe this issue and decide it on merits one way or
the other for want of adequate material. It is for this
reason, we decline to examine the issue at this stage
in these proceedings and leave the parties to raise
this plea only after the prosecution adduces the
evidence on merits. The Trial Court will then record
3
its finding at that stage in accordance with law
while disposing of the case.
7. Since the trial is pending for quite a long time,
we direct the concerned Magistrate to proceed with
the matter and dispose of the same in accordance
with law within a period of one year from the date of
this order without being influenced by any of the
observations of the High Court made in the
impugned order and in this order. In fact, we
refrain ourselves from recording any finding on
various submissions urged by the learned counsel
for the respondent in his written submissions in the
light of what we have observed supra .
4
8. With these observations, the appeal stands
disposed of.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 11, 2018
5