SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
Kamlesh Kumar & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. – Respondents
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Nos. 6219-6220 OF 2012
Decided On : 26-09-2013
(a) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 56 r/w First Schedule to CrPC, Part II - Part II of First Schedule applicable to cognizable offences - Section 61 of FERA making offence under section 56 non-cognizable - No exclusive jurisdiction of Magistrate to try the case - No infirmity in transferring the case to Special judge. (Para 17)
(1995) 4 SCC 392 - Relied upon
(1988) 2 SCC 602; 107 (2003) Delhi Law Times 734; 1959 Supp 1 SCR 63; 1975 Mh.L.J 588 - Referred
2009 (151) Company Cases 485 (Delhi) - Cited with approval
(b) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Notwithstanding section 407, CrPC, High Court has jurisdiction to transfer cases by virtue of power of superintendence u/Art 227. (Paras 19 and 20)
(1995) 4 SCC 392 - Relied upon
Per Madan B. Lokur, J
(c) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Section 56 - Exclusive power to try FERA cases not conferred upon Magistrate - No impediment in transferring case to Special Judge. (Para 13)
(1988) 2 SCC 602; 1963 Supp (1) SCR 885; (1995) 4 SCC 392 - Referred
(d) Administration of Justice - Judicial Propriety - Right to appeal - Contended that by transferring the case from Magistrate to Special Judge petitioner was deprived of his right to appeal - Held right of appeal not taken away - Only forum has changed from District and Sessions Judge to the High Court - Right to appeal does not mean right to appeal to a particular forum. (Paras 15 and 16)
1953 SCR 118; AIR 1966 SC 1206; (1979) 1 SCC 92; (1983) 1 SCC 177; (1987) 3 SCC 27 - Relied upon
(f) Criminal Trial - Transfer of case - Power of High Court - High Court has power of transfer under two provisions - Section 407, CrPC and Article 227 of the Constitution - Instantly High Court exercising its Administrative power under Article 227 - No infirmity. (Paras 22 to 24)
(1995) 4 SCC 392 - Relied upon
(g) Administration of Justice - Right/ Power of revision - Discretionary - Enables Superior Courts to correct a grave error - Does not create a corresponding right in litigant - Transfer of case from Magistrate to Special Judge causing no prejudice to petitioner (Para 28)
1959(1) Suppl. SCR 63; (1973) 2 SCC 583 - Relied upon
(2009) 151 Comp Cas 485 (Delhi); 151 (2008) DLT 89 - Cited with approval
107 (2003) DLT 734 - Overruled
Facts of the case:
One K.M. Prasad and three others were proceeded against for offences under FERA. The State transferred these cases to the Special Judge hearing fodder scam cases.
Petition challenging the transfer was rejected by High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned order.
Result : SLPs dismissed.
JUDGEMENT
H.L. GOKHALE, J
These Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 19.7.2012, whereby a Learned Single Judge of the Jharkhand High Court dismissed the two Writ Petitions bearing Nos. Writ Petition Nos.95 & 112 of 2003 filed by Shri Kamlesh Kumar and three others, all children of one Dr. K.M. Prasad who worked earlier as the Director of Animal Husbandry department in Government of Bihar. They are being prosecuted under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA), and those cases have been transferred to the Special Judge hearing the Fodder scam cases. In the above referred Criminal Writ Petitions they had challenged the transfer of those cases to the Special Court by contending that the transfer order was bad on various grounds, the principal amongst them being that the State Government had no jurisdiction to authorise the Special Judge to try these cases under FERA. Those Criminal Writ Petitions have been rejected, and hence these Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) have been filed.
Facts leading this Criminal Petition are as follows:-
2. The above referred Dr. K.M. Prasad, father of the petitioners, was working earlier as the Director of Animal Husbandry department, Government of Bihar. He is being prosecuted along with some others by the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in the Court of Special Judge at Ranchi for conspiracy to defraud the State Government to the extent of Rs.7,09,92,000/- during 1980-90 on the basis of fake allotment letters purportedly issued by him for the purchase of medicines. It is claimed that fake supplies were shown as made by the suppliers, and the money withdrawn towards such fake allotments was misappropriated by the accused persons.
3. During the course of investigation it was realized that the amount involved was much more, i.e. Rs.19,81,66,460/- approximately, and that the accused Dr. K.M. Prasad had acquired huge movable as well as immovable assets in his own name, and in the name of his children and others at different places. The said Dr. K.M. Prasad and his children were also therefore prosecuted in the case arising out of this investigation, and charges have already been submitted by the CBI against them, and the cases are pending in the court of Special Judge CBI at Ranchi.
4. It was further revealed during the course of investigation, that Mr. Kamlesh Kumar and three others, children of Dr. K.M. Prasad, had received huge amounts of Foreign Exchange over U.S. $3,15,000 and British £1000. It was suspected that these remittances were not actually genuine gifts as claimed by them, but were amounts arranged by certain persons involved in the animal husbandry scam in violation of the provisions of FERA. It was alleged that they had violated the provisions of Section 9(1) (a) and (b) and 64(2) of the FERA, and rendered themselves liable to be prosecuted under Section 56 of the said Act.
5. The Enforcement Director accordingly filed cases against the petitioners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Ranchi for taking cognizance under Section 56 of FERA. The Enforcement Director however, realized that many of the offenders in the FERA cases were also accused in the cases which were pending before the Special Judge in the Fodder scam cases, and the documents relied upon and the witnesses to be examined were common. The Director, therefore, wrote to the State Government on 25.1.2002 seeking to have these cases tried by the same court. Accordingly, the Law Secretary of the Government of Jharkhand wrote to the Registrar General of the High Court on 2.3.2002 and on 25.4.2002. Thereafter, the full Court of Jharkhand High Court passed a resolution on 25.4.2002, to empower the Special Judge, CBI Animal Husbandry scam cases, to try the cases of FEMA, 1999. (This is because in the meanwhile, from 1.6.2000, FERA had been replaced by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – FEMA for short). Accordingly a notification was issued b
Ranvir Yadav v. State of Bihar
Pranab Kumar Mitra v. The State of West Bengal
Prem Chand Garg v. Excise Commissioner
Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne
Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder v. Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto
M/s Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad v. Director of Enforcement
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.