Court upholds trial & revisional court orders in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act case, allows petitioner's arguments during final trial.

The court declined to quash the revisional court's order and trial court's orders in a case involving prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner's argument regarding the Circular of 5th July, 2001, was not immediately addressed as evidence had been recorded, and the trial was ongoing. The court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioner to raise arguments before the trial court during final arguments without expressing any opinion on the case's merits to prevent prejudice.

---

---

Issues:
1. Quashing of revisional court's order and trial court's orders
2. Prosecution under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
3. Applicability of Circular of 5th July, 2001
4. Evidence recorded in trial court
5. Disposal of petition with liberty to urge pleas before trial court

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought the quashing of the revisional court's order dated 17th November, 2017, and the trial court's orders of 11th May, 2017, and 30th May, 2017. The trial court had put the petitioner on trial for offenses under Section 18(2) r/w Section 18(3) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and under Section 56 of FERA. The petitioner had challenged the trial court's order before the revisional court unsuccessfully.

2. The petitioner argued that prosecution should not proceed as per the Circular of 5th July, 2001, issued under Section 56 of FERA, which states that there can be no prosecution if the amount involved is less than Rs. 2 crores. Reference was made to a decision of a Coordinate Bench to support this argument. The petitioner contended that the offense in question had already been compounded, as evidenced by a report from the Directorate of Enforcement regarding outstanding G.R. Forms.

3. The respondent, represented by the Enforcement Directorate, opposed the petitioner's pleas, stating that the trial court had already recorded evidence of three witnesses out of six. The Circular of 5th July, 2001, relied upon by the petitioner, was deemed untraceable and its applicability to the petitioner's case was disputed.

4. The court noted that since evidence from three witnesses had been recorded and the trial was scheduled to proceed for the remaining evidence, the legality of the impugned order did not need immediate testing. The existence and applicability of the Circular of 5th July, 2001, remained to be established. The court emphasized that the petitioner's submissions would be considered after the evidence was led in the case.

5. Consequently, the petition was disposed of with liberty granted to the petitioner to raise the arguments before the trial court during the final arguments stage. The court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the case's merits to avoid prejudicing either party before the trial court.

---