Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Exoneration on Merits Bars Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Quashes FERA Charges Against ITC Limited

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court underscores the principle that criminal proceedings cannot continue if departmental adjudication exonerates the accused on merits.

The Calcutta High Court, under the judgment delivered by Justice Tirthankar Ghosh on June 28, 2024, quashed the criminal proceedings against ITC Limited pertaining to alleged violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The court underscored the significance of the company’s exoneration in departmental adjudication, which demonstrated that the allegations were unsustainable.

The case against ITC Limited involved allegations of unauthorized foreign exchange transactions, specifically regarding the company’s export dealings and remittances to foreign entities. The Enforcement Directorate accused ITC Limited of failing to repatriate funds to India and alleged that the company remitted funds generated through counter trade agreements to its subsidiaries in Singapore and the EST Group of Chitalias in the USA, violating several provisions of FERA.

The crux of the court’s decision revolved around whether the exoneration of ITC Limited in departmental adjudication proceedings could influence the criminal proceedings. Justice Ghosh extensively referenced Supreme Court precedents, highlighting that if adjudication on merits exonerates an accused, criminal proceedings based on the same facts and allegations should not continue.

The court analyzed the statements from ITC executives, finding inconsistencies and generalizations in the allegations. The adjudicating authority had previously dismissed these statements as vague and unsupported by concrete evidence. Justice Ghosh observed that the statements of key executives, including Mr. G.K.P. Reddy and Dr. E. Ravindranath, did not substantiate the charges against ITC Limited.

Justice Ghosh emphasized, “Considering all the above facts, it is clear that the allegations made against M/s. ITC Ltd., the Noticee company and other 18 Noticees in Memorandum No. T-4/18-C/07(SCN-XV) dated 02.01.1998 that they have violated the provisions of Sections 8(1), 9(1)(a), 16(1)(b) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 are not proved.”

The judgment relied on the principles outlined in Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr., where it was held that if exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on merits and shows allegations are not sustainable, criminal prosecution should not continue. Justice Ghosh reiterated, “In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue.”

The High Court’s judgment to quash the criminal proceedings against ITC Limited reaffirms the legal principle that criminal prosecution should cease when departmental adjudication exonerates the accused on merits. This decision reinforces the need for higher standards of proof in criminal cases and underscores the judiciary’s role in preventing the abuse of legal processes.

 

Date of Decision: June 28, 2024

ITC Limited vs. Sri S.K. Mukherjee

 

Latest Legal News