JUDGMENT :

(Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)

1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings in Case No.C-2481/2002 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta under Sections 56 and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

2. The petitioner's case is that the complaint was filed by the opposite party on 31st May, 2002.

3. That in the complaint, ITC Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”), a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 37, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata 700071(hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) was arraigned as Accused no.1 and the petitioner herein was arraigned as accused no.7.

4. The complaint was filed for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by the Company under Section 56 of the Act.

5. The petitioner and other individuals working for the Company were made vicariously liable for the alleged contravention of the Act by the Company by virtue of Section 68 of the Act.

6. That prior to the filing of the Complaint against the Company and the other individuals including the petitioner, the Enforcement Directorate had issued show cause memorandum No.T-4/18-C/97-SCN XVIII dated 31st March 1998 (hereinafter referred to as “the SCM”) against them. The allegations in the SCM and the complaint are identical. The SCM proposed to hold adjudication proceedings (civil proceeding) and impose penalty under Section 50 of the Act. In the SCM, the petitioner was noticee no.15.

7. That in both the civil and criminal proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate, Section 68 of the Act was invoked, seeking to make individuals such as the petitioner vicariously liable for such alleged contravention by the Company.

8. The company filed a revisional application being CRR No.1891/2004 before this Hon'ble Court, seeking to quash the complaint.

9. That during the pendency of the said revisional application, the SCM was adjudicated by the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate. After consideration of the material evidence, the Special Director dropped the SCM against the Company and all the individual noticees, including the Petitioner, by a detailed order dated 30th April, 2008.

10. Relevant extracts of the said order are reproduced below:-

“74. …. Since the individual noticees who were either Directors or Officials of the Company were charged for the violations allegedly committed by the company in terms of Section 68 of the FERA, 1973, the said charges can be stated to have been proved only in such a situation where the charge against the main noticee have been proved and hence, no proceedings are warranted against the said noticees. Since, the charges against ITC Ltd. had been not proved, the charges against the individual notices also failed automatically.”

“75. Having regard to the findings and discussions hereinbefore, I hereby drop the proceedings against M/s. ITC Ltd., Noticee No.1 in SCN No.T-4/18-C/97(SCN-XVIII) dated 31.3.1998 as the charges against the company in the SCN under consideration have not been proved on the basis of material evidences. Consequent upon the above, the charges against the individual noticees i.e. Noticee Nos.2 to 15 are also dropped.”

11. This Hon'ble Court, in light of the aforementioned subsequent development of the Enforcement Directorate exonerating the Company and all the individual noticee on merit in the SCM (civil proceeding), quashed the criminal Complaint in respect of the company alone who was the sole petitioner in CRR 1891 of 2004, which was initiated on the same allegations as those in the SCM. By a Judgment dated 28th February, 2011, this Hon'ble Court held :

“From the result of such departmental proceeding it is crystal clear that company was not involved in any transaction which allegedly culminated in the violation of Sections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Foreign Exchange Reg