Prima facie role in company's business is essential to sustain prosecution for alleged foreign exchange contravention.

A company-related criminal complaint under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act could not be sustained where the complaint and supporting material did not prima facie show that the accused was, at the relevant time, in charge of and responsible for the company's business. The material relied on was limited to a bank letter describing several persons as "Directors/Guarantors" and did not establish the petitioner's role during the alleged contravention. The complaint was filed on a standard averment without adequate factual basis, so the proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the criminal complaint under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could proceed against the petitioner when the material before the complainant did not prima facie show that he was in charge of, and responsible for, the conduct of the company's business at the time of the alleged contravention.

Analysis: For fastening liability on an associated with a company, the complaint must contain material showing that he was, at the relevant time, in charge of the company's business and responsible for its conduct. The Court noted that the petitioner had consistently denied being a director during the relevant period and had asserted resignation long before the alleged contraventions. The only material relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate was a bank letter describing several persons as "Directors/Guarantors", which did not distinguish between those roles or establish the petitioner's position at the time of the alleged offence. The respondent also ignored the petitioner's reply to the opportunity notice and filed the complaint on a standard averment without sufficient supporting material.

Conclusion: The complaint did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner, and the proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: A company-related prosecution can be quashed where the complaint and available material fail to disclose prima facie that the accused was, at the time of the offence, in charge of and responsible for the company's business.

---