Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

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