G. Chockalingam, J.

1. This revision is directed against the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 1267 of 2014 in C.C. No. 163 of 1996, dated 18.05.2015 by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EOI), Egmore, Chennai, refusing to discharge the petitioner from the case.

2. The facts leading to the case are as follows:-

The respondent/complainant preferred a complaint under Sections 8(1), 9(1)(c) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EOI), Egmore, Chennai stating that the accused company, who were telecasting under logo J.J. TV had hired transponder abroad for their telecast and payments made abroad for the same without getting permission of the RBI and during search, certain incriminating documents were recovered and after examination of the witnesses, charges were framed against the accused and the present petitioner/A3 filed a petition under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. to discharge her from the case. After hearing both sides and considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, (EOI), Chennai-8, has dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner holding that there are incriminating materials available to frame charges against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed by the petitioner/A3.

3. Mr. B. Kumar, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly contend that the learned Judge has not considered the various points raised on the maintainability of the complaint and their right to invoke Section 68 of the FERA and serious injustice has been caused to the petitioner by reason of non-reference to those judgments and others and that the learned Judge failed to see that the complaint as filed against A3 is not maintainable and there is no need to invoke vicarious liability under Section 68 of the Act and that the learned Judge failed to see that the company had a Managing Director, who has arrayed as A2 and that the petitioner/A3 was only an ordinary Director and that the learned Judge failed to see that to invoke vicarious liability under Section 68 of the Act, the complainant must make averments in the complaint itself, is Director concerned was in-charge of and response for the day to day management of the company, where there is no such averment made in the complaint, it is wholly not maintainable against the Director and on that ground alone, the petitioner/A3 ought to have been discharged and that the learned Judge failed to see that none of the prosecution witnesses had spoken or deposed that the petitioner/A3 was in-charge of or responsible to the day today administration of the company and that the learned Judge failed to see that the petitioner had acted as Chairperson and not Chairman, as wrongly described of a meeting of the Board of Directors of the company and no other evidence to show that she ever participated in the affairs of the company in any other manner and that the learned Judge failed to see that acing as Chairperson in a particular meeting of the Board of Directors of the company, cannot, by any reason, show on the Chairperson must be considered as having been in-charge of the day today administration of the company and that the learned Judge failed to see that no material has been produced to show that J. Jay TV ever made TV Broadcast and that the learned Judge failed to see that there are materials to show that J. Jay TV ever broadcast through TV and hence, the agreement with M/s. Rimsat and M/s. Subic Bay Satellite System Inc. are not relevant and that the learned Judge has relied upon the statement said to have been recorded from Rajoo of Kualalambur under Ex.P47 and the said statement is totally inadmissible in evidence for more than one reason and that the statement of living persons could not be marked, except by examining him in th