1. This is an application for quashing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal Revision Application no. 217 of 1996 in Case no. 3 of 1996 filed by the Respondent no. 1 who is Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate (FERA., against the petitioner.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that the present applicant was non Executive Director of M/s Kirloskar Brothers Limited, Pune. He was also working with M/s DSP Financial Consultants Ltd., Mumbai. On certain information received by the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, search of office premises of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and its officers were undertaken and besides the other things, it was found that A.T.C. Pvt. Ltd. had paid amount of 30 Lacs to one Mr. M.M. Vaidya, Vice President of Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. and said M.M. Vaidya had made the payment of that amount to the present applicant, H.M. Kothari, in consideration of his making payment of 2 Lac Sterling Pound, to M/s PME Limited, London. In view of this, the complaint was filed against accused persons under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (FERA in brief.. The present applicant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate to recall the process, but that application was rejected. Thereafter, he filed revision application dtd. 2/7/1996, which also came to be dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. Thereafter the applicant filed the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order passed by the learned Judge. Petitioner contends that there is no material to establish that he had received amount of Rs.30 Lacs for transferring amount of 2 Lac Pounds to P.M. Engines Ltd., London on behalf of M/s Kirloskar Brothers. According to him, there was nothing to show that the present applicant had violated any provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and particularly Section 9(a. read with Section 56 of the said Act.

3. Heard Mr. Amit Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. Nalawade, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1.

4. Mr. Desai, learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that there is no documentary evidence to prove that the present applicant had received amount of Rs.30 Lacs and that he had remitted amount of 2 Lac pounds to P.M. Engines Ltd., London in violation of Section 9 of the FERA. He further contended that the whole case is based on the statement made by M.M. Vaidya, through whom the payment was allegedly made to the present applicant. A.T.C. was clearing Agent of Kirloskar Group while Mr. Bhadkamkar was working with A.T.C.. Mr. Bhadkamkar is no more alive and said M.M. Vaidya has retracted from his statement recorded before the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate. In view of this, there is no evidence and particularly there is no documentary or other evidence to corroborate the retracted statement made by M.M. Vaidya. During the arguments, Mr. Desai also placed on record an order passed by the Deputy Director of Directorate Enforcement on 21st July 2004 pending the present application. The Deputy Director is adjudicating authority under FERA. Mr. Desai pointed out that after detail hearing and perusal of the records the adjudicating authority under FERA had completely exonerated the present applicant. In view of this there is additional ground to quash the criminal proceedings. He contended that when the Department could not establish the allegations even in the departmental enquiry before the adjudicating authority, it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove the charges before the criminal Court where the standard of proof is much higher than the standard of proof expected and required in the adjudication proceedings. On the other hand, Mr.Nalawade, learned Counsel for the respondent-complainant vehemently contended that it is settled position that the adjudication p