CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus ARVIND KHANNA

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 17-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
v.
ARVIND KHANNA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2019)
OCTOBER 17, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 – s. 23 r/w. s. 4
– Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – s. 35 r/w. s.3 –
The respondent-petitioner received a sum of Rs. 9,04,84,770/- from
eight foreign entities – FIR was filed by the appellant-CBI alleging
violation of provisions under FCRA, 1976 u/s. 23 r/w. s.4 – Additional
CMM took cognizance u/s. 35 r/w. s. 3 of the Act, 2010 –  Appellant
filed revision on the ground that when offence was committed, the
FCRA, 1976 was in force – The Revisional court held that Additional
CMM committed ‘jurisdictional error’, thereby providing that
cognizance was deemed to have been taken u/s. 23 r/w. s.4 of Act,
1976 – Thereafter, respondent sought quashing of the FIR, charge-
sheet and further consequential order on the ground that the amount
which he had received was a gift from his father – Respondent also
alleged that Revisional Court had passed the order without issuing
notice to him – High Court quashed the FIR with all proceedings
emanating thereto – On appeal, held: The High Court proceeded
on the premise that the appellant had admitted the receipt of foreign
contribution from his father – However, the case of appellant was
that foreign contributions were received by the respondent from
different entities in the foreign country, without the permission from
the Government – There was a serious factual dispute – The High
Court recorded findings on several disputed facts – Defence of the
accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence during the
trial – The High Court made the wrong assessment at the stage,
when the matter was taken cognizance by the Competent Court –
Insofar, the order passed by the Revisional authority is concerned,
the same is quashed and remitted to the Revisional Court for fresh
consideration after issuing notice to the respondent – Thus, the
impugned order of the High Court set aside.
   [2019] 13 S.C.R. 470
470
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. This Court is of the view that the impugned
order passed by the High Court is not sustainable. In a petition
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court has recorded
findings on several disputed facts and allowed the petition. Defence
of the accused is to be tested after appreciating the evidence
during trial. The very fact that the High Court, in this case, went
into the most minute details, on the allegations made by the
appellant-C.B.I., and the defence put-forth by the respondent,
leads to a conclusion that the High Court has exceeded its power,
while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C. [Para 19] [477-F-H]
2. The assessment made by the High Court at this stage,
when the matter has been taken cognizance by the Competent
Court, is completely incorrect and uncalled for. [Para 20]
[478-A]
3. From a reading of the impugned order, it appears that
the High Court has proceeded on the premise that the appellant
has admitted the receipt of foreign contribution from his father,
who is an Indian passport holder. In fact, it is not so. It is a case
of the appellant-CBI, that the foreign contributions were received
by the respondent from different entities in the foreign country,
without permission from the Government. On the other hand,
the case of the respondent, in defence, is that he has received
such funds from his father. The High Court has taken into
consideration the statement, alleged to have been made by
respondent’s father on 11.07.2006 and one of the statements
given on behalf of one of the entities by the name ‘New Heaven
Nominees’. It is a defence of the respondent that the foreign
entities which have sent the funds to the respondent are from
available funds, standing to the credit of respondent’s father.
[Para 21] [478-B-D]
4. The correctness of the defence whether such amounts
were received by the respondent from his father or not is a serious
factual dispute. It is not an admitted position, as recorded by the
High Court. The correctness of the defence of the respondent is
to be gone into only after appreciating the evidence during the
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION v.
ARVIND KHANNA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
trial. Merely, by referring to statements alleged to have been
made by father of the respondent an

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.