VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 741 · Decided: 19-04-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

(2016) 2 S.C.R. 741 
VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No.332 of2016) 
APRIL 19,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.245 - Discharge of 
accused - Adjudicating authority imposed penalty on company and 
directors under FERA Act. - Tribunal dislodged the finding of the 
adjudicating authority - Order of tribunal not assailed by the 
revenue and therefore attained finality - During process of 
. adjudication, criminal proceedings coniinued - After the controversy 
was put to rest by the tribunal, application for discharge filed by 
accused - Magistrate ordered discharge of the accused - Re\>isional 
court dislodged the view of magistrate - High Court held that the 
tribunal has not given any finding on the merits of the case and its 
findings were based on technical grounds - On appeal, held: The 
·decision rendered by tribunal was on merits - It was not adjudication 
on any technical foundation - Moreover, the order of tribunal was 
not, under assail before the High Court and hence High Court could 
. not ·have commented on the merits of the ca$e - Order of magfstrate 
discharging the accused persoiis stand restored - Foreign Exchange 
Regulation Act, 1973 - s. 18. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:t. The conclusions arrived at by the tribunal are on 
analysis of .statutory provisions, the applicability of the letters 
issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the nature of transaction 
carried out between the parties. It is beyond any stretc!i of doubt 
that the decision rendered by the tribunal is on merits. It is not 
an adjudication on any technical foundation. The decision on 
merits was allowed to rest by the revenue. The Magistrate relying 
upon the decision in R1u/l1es/1y"m Kejriw"I dischal'l(ed the accused 
person. The Additional Sessions Judge followed t!1e view 
expressed in the dissenting opinion. The High Court noted the 
same and did not really advert to the said facet. The revisional 
court should have followed the view expressed by the majority 
741 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
742 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
and not the minority. The approach was absolutely erroneous. 
Be that as it may, as the order passed by the High Court showed, 
·it referred to the principles culled out in Radllesllyam Kejriwal 
and thereafter proceeded, to record its opinion about the 
transaction on which the tribunal had rendered its verd.ict. The 
order of the tribunal was not under assail before the High Court 
and, hence, the High Court could not have commented on the 
merits of the same. As the order passed by the tribunal was not 
under challenge, the High Court should not have_ deliberated on 
the justification of the view expressed by the tribunal. (Para 14] 
J748-D-H, 749-AJ 
2. In R{l(fflesllyam Kejriwal, the majority observed that the 
yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the 
adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for 
prosecution is identical and the exoneratio·n. of the person 
concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case 
it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions 
of the Act in the adjµdication proceedings, the trial of the person 
concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court. On the 
basis of the said principles, the majority proceeded to analyse 
the factual matrix and analysed the finding recorded by the 
adjudicating authority and opined when there is a finding by the 
Enforcement Directorate in the adjudication proceeding that there 
is no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, it would 
he unjust and an abuse of the process of the court to permit the 
Enforcement Directorate to continue with the criminal 
prosecution. Thus there is no reason to to disagree with the 
same and refer the pronouncement in R(l(l/1esl1yam Kejriwal for 
reconsideration by the larger Bench. (Paras 19, 20] (751-E-H] 
3. In the instant case, the tribunal had arrived at a conclusion 
that the appellant cannot be held guilty for Section 18(2) read 
with Secdon 18(3) of FER Act, 1973 and the advise of the Reserve 
Bank of India deserve to be accepted as they are totally in 
consonance with legal provisions. The High Court, without an 
assail to the order passed by the tribunal, has adverted to the 
same and opined that it does not subscribe to the view expressed 
by the tribunal that Section 18(2) and 18(3

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