RADHEYSHYAM KEJRIWAL versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 889 · Decided: 18-02-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 889 
RADHEYSHYAM KEJRIWAL 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1097 of 2003) 
FEBRUARY 18, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD,. JJ.] 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973- ss. 50, 51 and 
A 
B 
56 -
Scope and applicability of -
Charges against the C 
appellant for contravening the provisions of s.9(1)(f)(i) and 
s.8(2) rlw s.64(2) - Enforcement Directorate (ED) sought to 
prosecute appellant in a proceeding uls. 56 though on the 
self-same facts and cause of action, respondent-adjudicating 
authority had dropped charges framed against the appellant D 
u/s.50 - Plea of appellant that standard of proof required to 
bring home the charge in a criminal case is much higher than 
the adjudication proceeding and once the appellant was 
exonerated in the adjudication proceeding, his prosecution 
was an abuse of the process of Court - Held (per majority): 
E 
The yardstick would be to judge as to whether allegation in 
the adjudication proceedings and the proceedings for 
prosecution was identical and exoneration of the person 
concerned in the adjudication proceeding was on merits - In 
case it is found on merit that there was no contravention of F 
the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the 
trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process 
of the court -
In the instant case, in the adjudication 
proceeding on merit the adjudicating authority had 
categorically held that the charges against the appellant for 
contravening the provisions of s. 9(1 )(f)(i) ands. 8(2) r/w s. 64(2) 
G 
were not sustainable - In the face of the finding by the 
Enforcement Directorate in adjudication proceeding that there 
was no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, it 
889 
H 
890 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 4 S.C.R. 
A would be unjust and an abuse of the process of the court to 
permit the Enforcement Directorate to continue with the 
criminal prosecution - Resultantly the appellant's prosecution 
is quashed - Held (per minority): The scheme of the Act 
makes it clear that adjudication by the concerned authorities 
B and prosecution are distinct and separate - The two 
proceedings are independent and irrespective of the outcome 
of the decision u/s.50, there cannot be any bar in initiating 
prosecution uls.56 - In the fight of the mandate of s.56, it is 
the duty of the Criminal Court to discharge the functions 
c vested with it and give effect to the legislative intention, 
particularly, in the context of the scope and object of FERA 
which was enacted for economic development of the country 
and augmentation of revenue. 
The Enforcement Directorate alleged that the 
D appellant had contravened the provisions of Section 8(2) 
and 9(1 )(f)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 
1973 and accordingly rendered himself liable to 
imposition of penalty under Section 50 of the Act. 
Accordingly, adjudication proceeding as contemplated 
E under Section 51 of the Act were instituted against him 
for the aforesaid contraventions. The adjudication officer 
(the Special Director) came to the conclusion that the 
allegation made against the appellant of contravention of 
the provisions of Section 8, 9(1 )(f)(i) and Section 8(2) read 
F with Section 64(2) of the Act were not sustainable. The 
Enforcement Directorate did not challenge this order and 
it attained finality. 
The Enforcement Directorate on the same allegation 
G which was the subject matter of adjudication proceeding 
laid complaint against the appellant for prosecution 
under Section 56 of the Act before the Metropolitan 
Magistrate. After the issuance of process and exoneration 
in the adjudication proceeding, the appellant filed 
H 
RADHEYSHYAM KEJRIWAL v. STATE OF WEST 
891 
BENGAL 
application for dropping the proceedings, inter alia, A 
contending that on the same allegation the adjudication 
proceedings having been dropped and the appellant 
exonerated, his continued prosecution is an abuse of the 
process of the Court. The Metropolitan Magistrate rejected 
his prayer. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred criminal B 
revision application which was dismissed by the High 
Court by the impugned order. 
In the instant appeal, dispute arose as to whether the 
Enforcement Directorate (ED) could prosecute the 
appellant in a proceeding under Section 56 of the FERA C 
when on the self-same facts and cause of action, the 
respondent-adjudicating authority· had dropped th

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