Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: 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