TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1998 (2) TMI 299
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is just and necessary to adjourn the above case to some other date to cross-examine the P.W. 1 examined in the case today. Hence it is just and necessary to adjourn the above case for cross examining the Witness P.W. 1 and thus render justice." 3. After hearing the learned Counsel, the lower Court passed the following order on 22-12-1997 in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 as follows :- " .... It appears from the records that the Counsel for the accused has been seeking adjournment saying some reason or other .......... Leaving all those proceedings to the discretion of the complainant i.e. the Department, the accused has been sleeping over the matter, and after the complaint being filed the accused is repeatedly filing applications after applications seeking adjournment. I find no reason in this application also to adjourn the case. ...." 4. Aggrieved against the said order the petitioner/accused filed this application under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to set aside the order dated 22-12-1997 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 989/97 in C.C. No. 881/93. There is no other prayer set out in this petition except to set aside the order passed by the learned Magistrate negativing the prayer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ship Mr. Justice Pratap Singh, J. reported in A.I. Shamsudeen and Others v. The Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and Others [1994 MLJ (Crl) 636] by pointing out to Para 4 of the said judgment wherein it is stated by the Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent that no stay of the operation of the adjudication order was passed by the Appellate Board, whereas in the present case the stay order has been passed by the FERA Board viz., Appellate Board, and in those circumstances the decision reported in 1994 MLJ (Crl) 636 will have no application. Even admitting that there is stay order in this case and the decision of Justice Pratap Singh, J., reported in 1994 MLJ (Crl) 636 will have no application to the facts of the present case, even then the Division Bench of our High Court in the decision reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 has not stated that the criminal case should be postponed indefinitely for an unspecified period, and instead the Division Bench of our High Court reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 has only stated that the criminal court shall be within its rights to judicially deal with the situation as pointed out by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l be within its right to judicially deal with the situation as pointed out by the Supreme Court in P. Jayappan's case - AIR 1984 S.C. 1693, 1984 Tax L.R. 1197, 1984 (149) I.T.R. 696 and the observations made in this judgment ..." 10. Therefore nowhere in the decision of the Division Bench of Madras High Court reported in 1996 (1) MLJ 260 it is stated that the trial of criminal case should be kept pending disposal of appeal before the FERA Board and in view of the stay granted by the FERA Board, the trial should be postponed or adjourned indefinitely or till the disposal of the appeal before the FERA Board. At the best following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 1693, in an appropriate case the criminal court can adjourn or postpone the hearing of the criminal case in exercise of its discretionary power under Section 309 of Cr. P.C. if the disposal of any proceeding pending under the FERA Act will have a bearing on the proceedings in the criminal court. 11. Realising this difficulty of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1984 S.C. 1693, which was followed by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in 1996 (1) MLJ 260, the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....omplete on non-payment of penalty within the period of 45 days. A criminal prosecution was an independent proceeding and not depending upon the validity of the order of adjudication, nor was it a continuation of that adjudication proceedings and under the FERA Act, there is no prohibition which directly prohibits the filing of the complaint under Section 57 of the FERA Act during the pendency of the appeal before the FERA Board at New Delhi, and that an appeal before the FERA Board against Adjudication proceeding would not be a bar for the criminal proceeding to be proceeded with, since the criminal Court will have to decide the issues arising out of the criminal proceedings on the evidence let in before the criminal Court. It is for the accused to take efforts to expedite the hearing of the appeal before the FERA Board at New Delhi and to get a Judgment at New Delhi as early as possible to put forward as a defence in the criminal case. No such effort was made by the petitioner herein since the appeal is pending for more than six years. Merely because the petitioner herein filed an appeal before the FERA Board in Appeal No. 171 of 1993 which is pending adjudication for more than si....