The court affirmed that receiving foreign contributions without registration or permission constitutes a violation of the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 1976, and mere knowledge of illegal acts does not suffice to establish conspiracy.

ORDER :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

All these criminal revisions have been filed against the concurrent judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in C.C.No.1123 of 2004, dated 30.09.2011, confirmed by the learned VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, in Crl.A.No.217 & 218 of 2011 dated 16.06.2017.

2 Originally the respondent police registered a case in R.C.No.53A/2001 against the petitioners herein viz. A1 the State President, A2 General Secretary, A3 State Deputy President and A4 and A5 the members of Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (in short “TMMK”) stating that from 15.12.1997 to 20.06.2000, A1 to A5 entered into a criminal conspiracy at Chennai to commit illegal acts by forming an Association to accept the foreign contributions without registering the Association with the Government of India and without obtaining prior permission from the Government of India. In pursuance of the conspiracy, on 15.12.1997 A3 to A5 opened an Account No.3953 with Bank of India, Sowcarpet, Chennai, in name and style of Coimbatore Muslim Relief Fund (CMRF), with the address of Association as No.7, North Mariakauyar Street, Chennai, as that of TNMMK. Between 15.12.1997 to 20.06.2000, CMRF received foreign contributions of Rs.1,54,88,508.07 from foreign sources and the same were deposited in the account of CMRF maintained at the Bank of India, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai, without the registration of prior permission from Government of India and Reserve Bank of India as required under Section 6 and 11 of Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act, 1976, (in short “the Act”). Even after the inquiry conducted by Government of Tamil Nadu, the accused did not stop the receipt of the foreign contributions, did not even take any steps to get permission from the Government of India and did not register the Association and thereby A1 to A5 violated the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. Neither TMMK nor CMRF was registered as an Association with Government of India for receiving the above foreign contributions of Rs.1,54,88,508.07/- as required under Section 6 of the Act and hence the accused 1 to 5 committed the offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC r/w 4(1)(e), 23 r/w 6 & 11 and 22 and 25 of the Act.

3 To bring home the charges levelled against the accused 1 to 5, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked 23 documents as Ex.P1 to P23. On completion of examination of prosecution witnesses and when incriminating evidence culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was put before the accused, they denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defense, D.W.1 was examined and 7 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D7.

4 The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on completion of trial and hearing of arguments advanced on either side, by judgment dated 30.09.2011, found the accused guilty and (i) convicted A1 to A5 for the offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 4(1)(e) r/w 23, Section 6 r/w 23 and Section 11 r/w 23 of the Act, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months each, (ii) convicted A3 to A5 for the offence under Section 4(1)(e) r/w 23 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months each, (iii) convicted A3 to A5 for the offence under Section 6 r/w 23 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months each, (iv) convicted A3 to A5 for the offence under Section 11 r/w 23 of the Act, and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two ye