S.K. SINHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER versus MIS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 2 S.C.R. 36 · Decided: 25-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.K. THAKKER · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2008] 2 S.C.R. 36 
S.K. SINHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER 
II. 
MIS. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 175 of 2008) 
JANUARY 25, 2008 
(C.K. THAKKER AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.) 
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 
s. 49(3) - Period of limitation for initiating proceedings 
C for offences committed under FERA - Criminal complaint for 
violation of provisions of FERA filed on a date within two years 
of coming into force of FEMA - Taking of cognizance by 
Magistrate and issuance of summons to accused on the date 
of filing of the complaint itself - Writ petition under Article 227 
D before High Court by accused seeking quashing of 
proceedings on the ground that process was issued on a date 
beyond 2 years of commencement of FEMA - High Court 
quashing proceedings as time-barred - HELD: High Court 
>-
erred in equating 'issuance of process' with 'taking cognizance' 
E by the Magistrate and in quashing the proceedings treating 
them as time-barred - On facts, cognizance of offence was 
taken by Magistrate and summonses were issued well within 
period of 2 years of coming into force of FEMA, as prescribed 
under sub-s. (3) of s. 49 thereof - Foreign Exchange 
F Regulation Act, 1973 - ss. 18(2), 18(3), 68(1) and 56(1)(ii) -
Code of Criminal procedure 1973 - ss. 190 to 202 and 204. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
S. 190, 200 and 204 - 'Cognizance of offences by 
G-~ Magistrate' - 'Initiation of proceedings' - 'Commencement of 
proceedings' and 'Issuance of process' for appearance of 
accused - Connotation of - HELD: 'Issuance of process' 
cannot be equated with 'taking cognizance' by a criminal court 
- The expression 'cognizance' when used with reference to a 
H 
36 
. -+ 
/ 
S.K. SINHA, CHIEF ENFORCEMENT OFFICER v. 
37 
M/S. VIDEOCON INTERNATIONAL LTD. & ORS. 
court or judge, it indicates the point when a court or a Magistrate A 
takes judicial notice of an offence with a view to initiating 
proceedings in respect of such offence - 'Initiation of 
proceedings' dealt with in Chapter XIV of the Code is different 
from 'commencement of proceedings' covered by Chapter XVI 
- Order of 'issuance of process' is in pursuance of and B 
consequent upon 'taking cognizance' of offence - Foreign 
y 
Exchange Management Act, 1999 - s. 49(3). 
Words and Phrases: 
Expressions 'taking cognizance' of offence by court/ c 
Magistrate, "Initiation of proceedings', 'commencement of 
proceedings' and 'issuance of process' - Connotation of - In 
terms of ss. 190, 200 and 204 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973. 
Appellant-Chief Enforcement Officer filed a criminal D 
complaint on 24.5.2002 against the respondent-Company 
alleging contravention of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) read 
with section 68(1) punishable under Section 56(1)(ii) of 
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. On the same 
day the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance E 
of the offence and issued summons to the accused. On 
3.2.2003 the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate issued process 
requiring the accused to appear before the Court and 
answer the charge under FERA. The accused filed a 
criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution 
before the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal 
F 
proceedings initiated upon the criminal complaint dated 
24.5.2002 on the ground that cognizance was taken by 
the court after the period of limitation and, therefore, the 
proceedings were liable to be quashed. The High Court G 
quashed the proceedings holding that the cognizance 
,._ 
could be said to have been taken when the process was 
issued in February 2003, and, therefore, the proceedings 
were time-barred. 
In the instant appeal filed by the complainant, it was H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 2 S.C.R. 
A contended for the appellant that under sub-section. (3) of 
section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 
1999 cognizance of an offence under FERA could be taken 
within a period of two years from 1.6.2000, the date of 
commencement of FEMA, and since the Magistrate took 
B cognizance on 24.5.2002, the date on which the complaint 
was filed, which was well within the period of limitation 
provided under s. 49(3) of FEMA, the High Court erred in 
quashing the proceedings. The stand of the accused, on 
the other hand, was that keeping in view the date of 
c commencement of FEMA being 1.6.2000, cognizance of 
an offence under FERA could have been taken under 
FEMA latest by 1.6.2002, and, therefore, issuance of 
process in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.