Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 176/2008
ANIL DHAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudhir Batra, Adv.
versus
ENFORCEMENT DFIRECTORATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Ashok Singh,
Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 29.04.2010
The respondent Enforcement Directorate had filed two criminal complaints
before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging non compliance and
non-payment of fine/penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs inspite of service of adjudication order
st
dated 31 May, 1999 bearing No.83/ADJ/99/AD (KS) 287/1172 for
violation/contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 (Act for short). It was stated that penalty/fine was not paid
and therefore, the accused was guilty of offence under Section 57 read with
Section 49 (2) & (3) of the Act.
2. The first complaint was against Mr. Anil Dhar, Proprietor M/s. Babs
International, A-5, Kashmir Apartment, Parwana Raod, Pitampura, Delhi and the
second complaint was filed against M/s. Babs International through its Proprietor
Mr.Anil Dhar, A-5, Kashmir Apartment, Parwana Road, Pitampura, Delhi. These
two complaints were registered as complaint Nos.224/1/2002 and 225/1/2002.
nd
3. By judgment dated 2 July, 2007, the Proprietor Mr. Anil Dhar was held
guilty of having committed an offence under Section 57 of the Act in complaint
No.224/1/2002. However the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate noticed that
another separate complaint for non-compliance the same adjudication order was
th
pending and hence the complaint was directed to be listed on 10 July, 2007 with
the connected case and observed that arguments shall be heard on that date.
th
4. On 10 July, 2007 two separate orders have been passed in complaint
No.224/1/2002 and complaint No.225/1/2002. The operative portion of order in
complaint No.224/1/2002 reads as under :-
“Since the accused is not a previous offender hence in the
considered opinion of this court the ends of justice would be
served if the accused firm M/s. Babs International through its
Proprietor Anil Dhar is sentenced to fine for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- for the offence u/s. 57 of FERA. In default of
payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months. Surety stands discharged. Documents
of surety be returned after cancellation of endorsement. File
be consigned to record room.”
5. Operative portion of order in complaint No.225/1/2002 reads as under :-
“Since the accused is not a previous offender hence in the
considered opinion of this court the ends of justice would be
served if the accused Anil Dhar is sentenced to fine for a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Surety stands discharged. Documents of surety be returned
after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to
record room.”
6. Against the two decisions the petitioner filed two criminal appeals
No.44/2007 and 45/2007, which have been dismissed by the learned Additional
st
Sessions Judge in his order dated 21 January, 2008.
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
present criminal revision is that the petitioner has been punished twice for the
same offence, once in his individual capacity and then again in his individual
capacity as a Sole Proprietor of M/s. Babs International. There is merit in the said
contention. M/s.Babs International is not a separate legal entity but a sole
proprietorship concern of Mr. Anil Dhar. M/s. Babs International is also not a
partnership concern. Mr. Anil Dhar and M/s Babs International are one and same
person and not two different individuals. One person cannot be punished for the
same offence twice.
8. In view of the aforesaid the present Revision Petition is allowed and it is
directed that the petitioner herein has been sentenced in CC No.224/1/2002 and
will be liable to be pay the fine as stipulated therein. The conviction and sentence
in Criminal Complaint No.225/1/2002 is set aside and quashed on the ground that
the petitioner has already been convicted for the same offence in the other
complaint. The petitioner has already paid the fine of Rs.3 lacs before the Trial
Court which has been bifurcated and divided in two equal parts of Rs.1,50,000/-
each and treated as partly paid in the two complaints. The fine paid by the
peititioner/accused will be treated as fine paid in the Criminal complaint
No.224/1/2002. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 29, 2010
J/NA/P
+ CRL.REV.P. 176/2008
ANIL DHAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Sudhir Batra, Adv.
versus
ENFORCEMENT DFIRECTORATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jatan Singh with Mr. Ashok Singh,
Advs. for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
% 29.04.2010
The respondent Enforcement Directorate had filed two criminal complaints
before Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate alleging non compliance and
non-payment of fine/penalty of Rs. 3 lakhs inspite of service of adjudication order
st
dated 31 May, 1999 bearing No.83/ADJ/99/AD (KS) 287/1172 for
violation/contravention of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1973 (Act for short). It was stated that penalty/fine was not paid
and therefore, the accused was guilty of offence under Section 57 read with
Section 49 (2) & (3) of the Act.
2. The first complaint was against Mr. Anil Dhar, Proprietor M/s. Babs
International, A-5, Kashmir Apartment, Parwana Raod, Pitampura, Delhi and the
second complaint was filed against M/s. Babs International through its Proprietor
Mr.Anil Dhar, A-5, Kashmir Apartment, Parwana Road, Pitampura, Delhi. These
two complaints were registered as complaint Nos.224/1/2002 and 225/1/2002.
nd
3. By judgment dated 2 July, 2007, the Proprietor Mr. Anil Dhar was held
guilty of having committed an offence under Section 57 of the Act in complaint
No.224/1/2002. However the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate noticed that
another separate complaint for non-compliance the same adjudication order was
th
pending and hence the complaint was directed to be listed on 10 July, 2007 with
the connected case and observed that arguments shall be heard on that date.
th
4. On 10 July, 2007 two separate orders have been passed in complaint
No.224/1/2002 and complaint No.225/1/2002. The operative portion of order in
complaint No.224/1/2002 reads as under :-
“Since the accused is not a previous offender hence in the
considered opinion of this court the ends of justice would be
served if the accused firm M/s. Babs International through its
Proprietor Anil Dhar is sentenced to fine for a sum of
Rs.3,00,000/- for the offence u/s. 57 of FERA. In default of
payment of fine he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of six months. Surety stands discharged. Documents
of surety be returned after cancellation of endorsement. File
be consigned to record room.”
5. Operative portion of order in complaint No.225/1/2002 reads as under :-
“Since the accused is not a previous offender hence in the
considered opinion of this court the ends of justice would be
served if the accused Anil Dhar is sentenced to fine for a sum
of Rs.3,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Surety stands discharged. Documents of surety be returned
after cancellation of endorsement. File be consigned to
record room.”
6. Against the two decisions the petitioner filed two criminal appeals
No.44/2007 and 45/2007, which have been dismissed by the learned Additional
st
Sessions Judge in his order dated 21 January, 2008.
7. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the
present criminal revision is that the petitioner has been punished twice for the
same offence, once in his individual capacity and then again in his individual
capacity as a Sole Proprietor of M/s. Babs International. There is merit in the said
contention. M/s.Babs International is not a separate legal entity but a sole
proprietorship concern of Mr. Anil Dhar. M/s. Babs International is also not a
partnership concern. Mr. Anil Dhar and M/s Babs International are one and same
person and not two different individuals. One person cannot be punished for the
same offence twice.
8. In view of the aforesaid the present Revision Petition is allowed and it is
directed that the petitioner herein has been sentenced in CC No.224/1/2002 and
will be liable to be pay the fine as stipulated therein. The conviction and sentence
in Criminal Complaint No.225/1/2002 is set aside and quashed on the ground that
the petitioner has already been convicted for the same offence in the other
complaint. The petitioner has already paid the fine of Rs.3 lacs before the Trial
Court which has been bifurcated and divided in two equal parts of Rs.1,50,000/-
each and treated as partly paid in the two complaints. The fine paid by the
peititioner/accused will be treated as fine paid in the Criminal complaint
No.224/1/2002. The Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
APRIL 29, 2010
J/NA/P