TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 875
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vit-of-service stating "NOT DELIVERED ADDRESSEE MOVED". 3. The appellant is not equipped with any other better particular of the respondent. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances, hearing of the appeal is taken up without the respondent. 5. In the impugned judgment dated 18th August, 2011 the Trial Court considered the following two points for decision, "1. Whether the accused failed to pay the penalty amount in view of adjudication order no.66/2000/AD dated 30.11.2000 within the stipulated period of 45 days computing from the date of it's receipt inspite of receiving the said adjudication order ? 2. Whether the complaint was filed in compliance of the provisions of section 61 (2)(ii) of the FERA ?" 6. Wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce with law. According to her, since in the judgment the Court has wrongly appreciated the attending facts and circumstances and also wrongly interpreted the applicable law, this Court's interference to the said impugned judgment would be necessary. 10. She has prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 18th August, 2011 and also for necessary other directions in this case. 11. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment may be extracted as hereinbelow:- "Admittedly PW-1 filed this case as an enforcement officer and he was not the director of enforcement at the time of filing this complaint. PW-2 in his evidence stated that he substituted PW-1 and proceeded by virtue of government notification. This witness is als....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xtracted as hereinbelow:- "S.O. 715(e).- In pursuance of sub-clause (b) of Clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (46 of 1973) and in supersession of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs notification No. GSR 73, dated the 26th January, 1974, the Central Government hereby authorises the following officers to make complaints in writing to any court in respect of any offence punishable under section 56 or 57 of the said Act, namely :- (i) Additional Director of Enforcement ; (ii) All Deputy Directors of Enforcement ; (iii) All Assistant Directors of Enforcement ; (iv) All Chief Enforcement Officers ; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, no such compliant shall be made unless the person accused of the offence has been given an opportunity of showing that he had such permission." 15. It appears that the law has enumerated and specified the officers who can maintain a criminal proceeding in a Court. According to the said provisions of law the Director of Enforcement or an officer authorised in writing on behalf of the Director or the Central Government or an authorized officer of the Reserve Bank shall be entitled to maintain a criminal case in a Court of law on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate. 16. 'Exhibit A' would be the relevant written authorization in terms of the said provisions of law. 17. It is beyond understanding as to what prevented the Court to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a complaint. The Magistrate has also emphasized that the appellant would not have the locus standi to initiate prosecution in absence of any authorization, without however considering or taking judicial note of his evidence and Exhibit-A (i.e., authorization certificate dated (22.12.2005). By doing so, the material fact of the appellant holding the office at the particular period of time, has been left out of the purview of consideration. The Magistrate could not ignore the ocular and documentary evidence before it, more so, when all these were uncontroverted. By virtue of holding officer at the particular period of time and having been authorized vide 'Exhibit-A' there was no impediment for the appellant to institute prosecution, which th....