A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.
C.B.I.
v.
PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY
(Ciminal Appeal No. 601 of 2009)
DECEMBER 11, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 – Applicability
of – Held: In the instant case, the matter was pending in the trial
Court in relation to certain offences alleged to have been committed
by the respondent, which were punishable under the Penal Code,
1860 and FCRA – Insofar as applicability of the provisions of the
FCRA were concerned, the same could be decided properly only
after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the material is
brought on record by means of evidence against the appellant in
the case – It is not appropriate to examine the issue at this stage in
these proceedings – The parties can raise this plea of applicability
of FCRA only after the prosecution adduces the evidence on merits
– Trial Court to records its findings at that stage in accordance with
law – Penal Code, 1860.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 601 of 2009.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2006 of the High
Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.115 of
1999.
Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Suhasini Sen (for Arvind Kumar Sharma), Advs.
for the Appellant.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ashok Arora, Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms.
Nina Gupta, Dhawal Jain, Ms. Palak Chadha, P.V. Yogeswaran, Advs.
for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated
04.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal
Revision Petition No.115 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the
revision petition filed by the respondent herein.
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 924
924
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
925
2. By order dated 26.03.2007, this Court issued notice limited to
the question on the correctness of the High Court’s order so far as it
relates to the applicability of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976
(hereinafter referred to as the “FCRA”).
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the written submissions filed by the respondent.
4. It is not in dispute that the matter is sub judice and pending in
the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in a case titled CBI
vs. Nemi Chand Jain and others in relation to certain offences alleged
to have been committed by the respondent, which are punishable under
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and
FCRA.
5. In our view, the issue with regard to the applicability of the
provisions of the FCRA to the case at hand can be decided more properly
only after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the material, if
any, is brought on record by means of evidence against the appellant in
the case.
6. At the initial stage of the proceedings in this case, it does not
appear appropriate or possible to probe this issue and decide it on merits
one way or the other for want of adequate material. It is for this reason,
we decline to examine the issue at this stage in these proceedings and
leave the parties to raise this plea only after the prosecution adduces the
evidence on merits. The Trial Court will then record its finding at that
stage in accordance with law while disposing of the case.
7. Since the trial is pending for quite a long time, we direct the
concerned Magistrate to proceed with the matter and dispose of the
same in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date
of this order without being influenced by any of the observations of the
High Court made in the impugned order and in this order. In fact, we
refrain ourselves from recording any finding on various submissions
urged by the learned counsel for the respondent in his written submissions
in the light of what we have observed supra.
8. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal disposed of.
C.B.I. v. PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
Lex