The main legal point established in the judgment is that vicarious liability is an exception to the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence, and no person can be held criminally liable for the actions of another without sufficient evidence of their involvement.

Suresh Kait, J.

1. By way of the present petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. petitioners seek directions thereby quashing of criminal complaint filed by respondent Enforcement Directorate against the petitioners. The petitioners also seek directions to quash the order dated 30.05.2002, whereby they have been summoned.

2. Since both the petitions have arisen from the impugned order dated 30.05.2002 and issues are same, therefore, these petitions are being decided by this common judgment.

3. Crl. M.C. 3003/2002 has been preferred by a Company, i.e., M/s. National Fertilizers, a Public Sector Undertaking of the Government of India (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner company), whereas Crl. M.C. 5093/2003 has been preferred by employees of above named Company.

4. It is important to note that vide orders dated 03.10.2002 and 16.12.2003 proceedings against the petitioners have been stayed by this Court.

5. The facts of the cases in brief are that petitioners company deals in fertilizers, heavy chemicals and their by-products including manufacturing and distribution and in case of necessity arises for the country, the Company was authorized to import such items from any country outside India.

6. Mr. Dinesh Mathur, ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners company and Mr. Rajeev Khosla, ld. Counsel appearing for the petitioners employees submitted that the complaint in question was filed during the sunset period, i.e., in the year 2002 alleging therein that in the year 1995, the petitioners employees along with other co-accused persons while working in State Bank of India (‘SBI’) violated the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘FERA’) as the petitioners company while acting as a canalizing agency for import of fertilizers entered into a contract with one Turkish Company namely M/s. Karsan Ltd. for supply of 200000 Metric Tons of Urea and made full advance payment to them to the tune of US$ 38 million without either obtaining any prior permission of the Reserve Bank of India (‘RBI’) or any guarantee from an International Bank of repute situated outside India to safeguard their money. The said Company was obliged to comply with these requirements for any payments exceeding US$ 5000. Similar allegations are against the SBI. Accordingly, the petitioners company as well as SBI Officers allegedly were made liable under Section 56 of FERA and its employees become vicariously liable for the alleged acts of the said Company under Section 56 read with Section 68 of FERA. The petitioners were also sought to be made liable under Sections 6(4) & (5), 8(1), (3) & (4), 9(1)(f)(i) and (3), 49, 64(2) and 73(3) read with Section 68 of FERA.

7. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the complaint is contrary to the investigation and chargesheet filed by the CBI in case bearing No.RC-3A/96-ACU-1. The CBI, in fact, found that the petitioners company was the victim of the conspiracy of the accused therein punishable under sections 120B/201/409 and 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Some of the petitioners employees therein were placed in column no. 2 of the chargesheet filed by CBI in above-mentioned FIR and have been cited as witnesses while remaining petitioners employees found no mention at all in the chargesheet. Thus, the present case is completely opposed to the findings reached by the CBI. It cannot, therefore, be comprehended, how when one investigation agency had already investigated the facts and circumstances which amounts to the allegations in the instant case, that too in the year 1996 itself. Hence, the institution of the complaint in question is nothing but an attempt to abuse the process of law and appears to be based on frivolous charges and is an afterthought complaint.

8. Ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that the petitioners employees have been arrayed as witnesses in CBI case mentioned above. Some of the