VIJAY MALLYA versus ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. OF FINANCE

Citation: [2015] 8 S.C.R. 709 · Decided: 13-07-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 8 S.C.R. 709 
VIJAY MALLYA 
v. 
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. OF FINANCE 
(Criminal Appeal No.1406 Of 2009) 
JULY 13, 2015 
• c; 
[ J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ!j'' 
A 
B 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, tt973: s.40 -
C 
Summons - Failure of appellant to appear on issuance of 
summons - Complaint filed before Magistrate and after 
considering records framed charges against appellant u/s. 56 
-Application for quashing of proceedings before High Court 
by appellant on the ground that wilful default of.appellant o 
could not have been inferred and that there was non 
application of mind in the issuance of summons ;;is well as 
in framing of charges - High Court held that framing of 
composite charge could not be treated to have caused 
prejudice so as to vitiate the proceedings - On appeal, held: E 
Complaint is maintainable if there is default in complying 
with the orders of summons by accused - The approach 
adopted by appellant is sheer abuse of process of Jaw -
Exemplary cost of Rs. 10 lakhs imposed - Cost- Summons. 
Dismissing the appeal with exemplary cost of Rs. 
10 lakhs, the Court 
HELD: 1. A complaint is maintainable if there is default 
F 
in not carrying out summons lawfully issued. The G 
averments in the complaint showed that the summons 
dated 21 •1 December, 1999 were refused by the appellant 
and earlier summons were not carried out deliberately. 
709 
H 
710 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 8 S.C.R. 
A As regards summons dated 81h November, 1999, the 
explanation was offered by the appellant by Letter dated 
22"d November, 1999. From the tenor of the.letter, it 
appears that it was not a case of mere seeking 
accommodation by the appellant but requiring date to 
B be fixed by his convenience. Such stand by a person 
facing allegation of serious nature could hardly be 
appreciated. Obviously, the enormous money power 
makes him believe that the State should adjust its affairs 
C to suit his commercial convenience. [Paras 11 to 13) 
[718-B-C; 719-E; 720-A-B] 
2. The impugned order is not interfered with for more 
than one reason. The fact that the adjudicating officer 
chose to drop the present proceedings against the 
D · appellant does not absolve the appellant of the criminal 
liability incurred by him by virtue of the operation of 
Section 40 read with Section 56 of the Act. The offence 
under Section 56 read with Section 40 of the Act is an 
independent offence. If the factual allegations contained 
E in the charge are to be proved eventually at the trial of 
the criminal case, the appellant is still liable for the 
punishment notwithstanding the fact that the presence 
of the appellant was required by the adjudicating officer 
F in connection with an enquiry into certain alleged 
violations of the various provisions of the Act, but at a 
subsequent stage the adjudicating officer opined that 
there was either insufficient or no material to proceed 
against the appellant for the alleged violations of the Act, 
G is immaterial. Secondly, an appeal against the 
conclusion of the adjudicating officer that the 
proceedings against the appellant for the alleged 
violation of the various provisions of the FERA Act are 
required to be dropped has not even attained finality. 
H Admittedly, such an order of the adjudicating officer 
VIJAY MALL YA v. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MIN. 711 
. 
OF FINANCE 
confirmed by the statutory appellate authority is pending A 
consideration in an appeal before the High Court. 
Though the result of such an appeal is immaterial for 
determining the culpability of the appellant for the alleged 
violation of Section 40 read with Section 56, the 
submission made on behalf of the appellant in this regard . B 
itself is inherently untenable. The entire approach 
adopted by the appellant is a sheer abuse of the process 
of law. [Paras 14to16] [720-A-F; 721-D-G] '1i· 
Dy. ChiefControlleroflmport and Export vs. Roshan Lal C 
Agarwal 2003 (2) SCR 621 : 2003 (4) SCC 139 -
distinguished. 
• 
Enforcement Directorate vs. M. Samba Siva Rao 2000 
(1) Suppl. SCR 51 : 2000 (5) SCC 431 - relied on. 
D 
Case Law Reference 
2003 (2) SCR 621 
distinguished 
para 8 
2000 (1) Suppl. SCR 51 
relied on 
para 10 
E 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1406 of2009. 
From the Judgmen.t and Order dated 21.05.2007 in 
F 
Criminal Revision Petition No. 554 of 2001 of the High Court 
of Delhi at New Delhi. 
F.S. Nariman, Ajay Bhargava, Vanita Bhargava, Diwakar 
Maheshwari, K
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.