IMPORTANT POINTS
It is not open to High Court, u/s 482 CrPC, to record findings on disputed facts and going into minute details on the allegations of the appellant and defence of the respondent that too after cognizance was taken.
Burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the facts.
When the Revisional court passes adverse order without issuing notice to the respondent, it will be open to the High Court to set aside the order and remit the matter back for fresh consideration, but not to allows the revision in its entirety.

JUDGMENT

R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Leave granted.

2. This civil appeal is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'CBI'), through the Investigating Officer, CBI/SPE, ACP, New Delhi, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 2784 of 2011 and Criminal M.C. No. 3342 of 2011.

3. The aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.'). Vide Crl. M.C. No. 2784 of 2011, the respondent-petitioner sought quashing of First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R.') bearing No. RC-AC-1-2007-A-0003 dated 02.04.2007, charge sheet dated 13.12.2010 and the order dated 05.07.2011, passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-01 (ACMM), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.

4. By order dated 05.07.2011, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 35 read with Section 3 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 (for short 'FCRA, 2010') and issued summons to the respondent-petitioner. Vide Crl. M.C. No. 3342 of 2011, the respondent-petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 20.08.2011, passed by the learned Revisional Court in Criminal Revision No. 02/2011, filed by the appellant herein.

5. While allowing the Revision Petition, order dated 05.07.2011 was substituted providing that deemed cognizance has been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short 'FCRA, 1976').

6. By the aforesaid common order passed by the High Court, in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the operating portion of the order, as contained in paragraph 82, reads as under:

"In view of the facts recorded above and the law discussed, I am of the opinion that the material placed on record with chargesheet by prosecution is not sufficient even to frame charge against the petitioner. Therefore, I hereby quash the FIR mentioned above with all proceedings emananting thereto with liberty to the Central Government to compound the case of the petitioner under Section 41(1) FCRA, 2010."

7. The respondent-petitioner was a Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), Punjab from 24.02.2002 to 27.02.2007.

8. During the said period from 06.03.2002 to 04.03.2006, he received a sum of Rs. 9,04,84,770/-(Rupees Nine Crores Four Lacs Eighty-Four Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Only) from eight foreign entities, one of these is an entity known as 'New Heaven Nominees'. The other seven entities are managed by an entity known as 'CI Law Trust'.

9. On the ground, that the foreign contribution received by the respondent-petitioner was in violation of provisions under FCRA, 1976, the appellant herein on 02.04.2007, registered the crime in F.I.R. No. RC-AC-1-2007-A-0003 under Section 23(1) read with Section 4(1) of FCRA, 1976.

10. It was the case of the respondent-petitioner, that the funds which were received, were gifts from his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna, an Indian passport holder. It was his case that the foreign entities through whom such funds were sent, were holding the same on behalf of his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and by order dated 05.07.2011, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 35 read with Section 3 of FCRA, 2010. As the offence was committed, when the FCRA, 1976 was in force, the appellant-CBI has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 2 of 2011 before the Revisional Court i.e. the Special Judge, CBI-03, New Delhi. The Revisional Court, by order dated 20.08.2011, on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi has committed a "jurisdictional error", by proceeding under the wrong provision of law, allowed the Revision Petition, thereby providing that cognizance is deemed to have been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the FCRA, 1976.

11. So far as such order passed by