TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (10) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot obeyed can be held to be a contravention of the provisions of the Act and whether any contravention of a direction issued under the Act, would squarely come within the ambit of section 56 of the Act. 2. The aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court arose out of judgment and order dated 9-7-1999 passed by this court in Crl. M(M) Nos. 500, 1299 of 1997, 477 of 1998, 3094 of 1997, 1509 of 1998, 502 of 1997 and 541 of 1998 wherein this court took the view that for contravention of provisions of section 40 of the Act the Union Government can prosecute the accused for offences under the provisions of section 174 or any other relevant provision under Chapter 10 of Indian Penal Code relating to contempts of the lawful authority of public servan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pond to these notices and sent evasive replies on one pretext or the other. This conduct of the respondent forced the petitioner to file complaint under section 56 of FERA on 27-1-1993. Cognizance of the offence was taken on the same date. Responding to the cognizance taken against him the respondent moved the learned trial court for discharge and dropping of the proceedings on the premise that the provisions of section 56 of FERA was not attracted. However, this application was disposed of by learned ACMM by order dated 27-12-1994 holding that section 56 of FERA is not attracted for disobedience to summons under section 40 of FERA and only an offence under section 228 IPC was made out and he proceeded to prosecute the respondent for the sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stant petition having been restored subsequent to the order of this court. I am afraid aforesaid contention holds water like sieve as the observations of His Lordship Justice K.S. Gupta vide whose order petition of the respondent was allowed, cannot be lost sight of nor can these be taken in isolation. These observations are as under :- "As regards prayer seeking setting aside part of aforesaid order dated 22nd December, 1994 whereby offence under section 56 was held to have not been committed by the petitioner, it is pertinent to note that respondent No. 2 had filed Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 2378/98 for the above purpose which was dismissed in default. Said part of the order thus having attained finality should not be disturbed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the matter, I set down to the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties as to whether complaint filed by the petitioner under section 56 of FERA though way back in 1993 was maintainable or not? 11. I would avoid dwelling either upon the fact at more length than that already referred or by analysing the provisions of section 40 and section 56 of FERA as the controversy arising from the judgments of this court, Kerala High Court and Madras High Court has been put at rest once for all by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment in M. Samba Siva Rao's case (supra) which has settled the proposition beyond the pale of controversy with the following observations :- "The answer to the questions raised would depend upon an analysis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iew clauses (i) and (ii) of section 56(1) are material for deciding the quantum of punishment and further, there is no reason why the expression 'in any other case' in section 56(1)(ii) should be given any restrictive meaning to the effect that it must be in relation to the money value involved, as has been done by the Kerala High Court. The summons issued under section 40, if not obeyed, must be held to be a contravention of the provisions of the Act and at any rate, a contravention of a direction issued under the Act, and therefore, such contravention would squarely come within the ambit of section 56 of the Act. . . ." (p. 436) 12. Though the aforesaid interpretation of the provisions was self evident on first hand reading of provisio....