Breach of the undertaking given under S.6(1)(b) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 constitutes an offence under S.23 of the Act, as it violates the provisions of S.6(1)(b) and the Rules made thereunder, emphasizing the legislative intent to regulate foreign contributions.

1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2. These appeals by the Central Bureau of Investigation are directed against the judgment dated 27th September, 1999 of a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court in exercise of power under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has come to hold that a breach of the undertaking given by an Association under S.6(1)(b) of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') would not amount to contravention of the provisions of the Act within the meaning of S.23 of the said Act and as such the criminal prosecution that had been launched, would not lie. The High Court having quashed the criminal proceedings, arising out of the two F.I.Rs., the Central Bureau of Investigation is in appeal.

3. The respondent-society, submitted an application in the prescribed form for registration under S.6 of the Act for receiving foreign contribution. It was indicated therein that the foreign contribution will be received only through the main branch of the State Bank of India, Hyderabad and the separate bank account was opened for the purpose. The society was allotted a registration number by the Central Government in accordance with S.6(1)(a) of the Act. The said society entered into an agreement with M/s. HEKS, Switzerland and the latter agreed to finance the project of "teaching aid non-formal education". The said M/s. HEKS issued instructions to the Canara Bank, Cantonment Branch, Bangalore, pursuant to which two Bank Drafts were issued amounting to Rs. 2 Lacs and Rs. 1.65 Lacs, in favour of the respondent-society by the Canara Bank, Bangalore. The respondent society instead of depositing the same in the main branch of the State Bank of India, Hyderabad, in accordance with the terms of the agreement, deposited the same into the account of Canara Bank, M.G. Road, Secunderabad. It was further alleged that the respondent society even failed to intimate the Central Government about the receipt of the contribution from M/s. HEKS, as required under S.6(1)(b) of the Act. The Central Government in exercise of its power under S.10(b) of the Act, issued a notification, requiring the society to have prior permission of the Government before accepting any contribution. But that notification was quashed by the High Court on a Writ Petition being filed. The Central Government, thereafter got the accounts of the respondent society inspected by the Assistant Director, appointed under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, in the Ministry of Home Affairs and on the basis of reports submitted by the said Assistant Director, two First Information Reports were lodged against the society. The investigating agency, after inspecting into the allegations, submitted a charge-sheet under S.6 read with S.20(3) and it is at that stage, the respondent filed the petition under S.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings. As stated earlier, the High Court having allowed the petitions and having quashed the criminal proceedings, the Central Bureau of Investigation is in appeal before this Court.

4. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, the learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants contends that a conjoint reading of S.6(1)(b) and S.23 of the Act read with S.3(a) and the prescribed form FC-1, required to be filed, seeking permission of the Central Government for accepting foreign contribution would unequivocally indicate that the contravention and/or violation of any terms and conditions contained in the very application form, would constitute the contravention of the provisions of the Rules made under the Act and as such would be punishable under S.23 of the Act and the High Court committed an error in holding that there has been no contravention of the provisions of the Act. Learned Additional Solicitor General further contended that the Act in question having been enacted to regulate the acceptance and utilizati