1990 (11) TMI 281

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are sold locally as well as exported. Accused 2 is one of the partners of accused 1 firm and he is looking after the affairs connected with the import and export in the firm. 3. The Intelligence Wing of the Income-Tax Department, Madras searched the office premises of accused 1-firm on 6-7-1982 as well as the residential premises of accused 2. Certain incriminating documents were seized during the course of such search. The Deputy Director of Inspection, (Intelligence), Income-Tax, Madras-34 gave information to the Office of the Assistant Collector, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, 26, Haddows Road, Madras-6 the respondent herein about the seizure of the documents, which appeared to indicate contravention by accused 1 - firm....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lable on record were not adequate to hold that there had been over-invoicing or that any money had been retained by M/s. Menrad to the credit of accused 1-firm and therefore, the charges of contravention of Sections 8(1) and 8(3) of FERA failed. 7. Three years thereafter, the respondent chose to initiate criminal proceedings on the very same set of facts for violation of the provisions of Section 14 of FERA read with Notification No. E1/3/EC/73 dated 15-6-1977 as amended by Notification No. 1/42/EC/78(GSR 996) dated 6-7-1978 read with Section 68 punishable under Section 56(l)(i)of FERA. 8. On receipt of the process, the petitioners came forward with the present action, invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the crim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioners would seek to place implicit reliance on the decision in Jewels of India v. State - 1987 (32) E.L.T. 511. In that case, the admitted case of the parties is that the order of the Collector of Customs imposing penalty upon the petitioners for gross under-valuation of the exported consignment has been set aside by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, which has practically found that there was no under-valuation. This was done on 23rd May, 1980, while the prosecution on the same set of facts was initiated in February, 1977 and the charges were framed on the 27th June, 1983. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners relying upon the decision in Uttam Chand and Others v. Income-Tax Offi....