Sat Pal Bhatia vs Union of India

Amar Dutt, J.—Petitioner Satpal Bhatia was working as manager in the Indian Overseas Bank at Moga from 1984to 1986. On July 30,1986 the regional office of the Bank at Chandigarh informed the Assistant Director in the Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, posted at Jalandhar that the petitioner had committed gross irregularity by falsification of the record of the Bank and also committed infraction of the Exchange Control Regulation. This led to the petitioner being arrested u/s 35 read with Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ''FERA''), by acquiring and transferring foreign currency to one Jogin-der Pal Jain, who was not an authorised dealer in foreign exchange as per the provisions of the Act. An inquiry was conducted and a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- was imposed on the petitioner, which order was challenged before the chairman, FERA. The Assistant Director had also filed a complaint u/s 56 of the FERA before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, which was pending at the time of the filing of the present petition. In addition to the complaint, FIR No, 18/87 dated August 21,1987 was also lodged with the CBI/SpE/Chandigarh on the basis of which a charge sheet was submitted before the Special Court CBI at Patiala.

According to the petitioner, the complaint filed by the Assistant Director as well as the charge sheet pertained to the same incident and as the offence committed by him was the same, he cannot be tried in two different Courts at two different places and the filing of the charge sheet is an abuse of the process of taw as the complaint in the Court at Jalandhar had been pending for more than three years. The petitioner relies on Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prays that the tatter charge sheet has to be quashed.

In the reply filed on behalf of the CBI, it was submitted that the case RC-18/87-CBI/SpE./Chandigarh was registered against the petitioner under Sections 420, 381, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(l)(d)ofthe Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Investigating Agency had found the allegations to be correct and, therefore, a charge sheet had been filed before the Special Judge. The assertions that the petitioner had been arrested u/s 35 of the FERA as also that a penalty of Rs. 3,50,000/- had been imposed on the petitioner were denied for want of knowledge. It was admitted that a complaint had been filed by the Assistant Director posted at Jalandhar in the Enforcement Directorate u/s 56 of the FERA. It was further asserted that the averment in the petition that the allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet are the same, is incorrect as the complaint u/s 56 of the FERA dealt with the violation of the provisions of Section 8(1) of the FERA while the charge sheet covered the offences of cheating, forgery, using asgenuine a forged document, falsification of accounts, criminal conspiracy and misuse of official position. Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to the reply, has no application to the facts of the present case and, therefore, the petition was devoid of merit and has to be dismissed.

I have heard Mr. A.S. Kalra, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the respondents.

Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is sought to be relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner for supporting his argument that the charge sheet filed by *be CBI being later in point of time should be quashed, reads as under :-

"flection 186 Cr.P.C :

High Court to decide, in case of doubt where inquiry or trial shall take place: Where two or mere Courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try that offence, the question shall be decided

a) if the Courts are subordinated the same High Court, by that High Court,"

A perusal of the aforesaid Section shows that a sine qua non for invoking the aforesaid provision is that the case in both the Courts should relate to the same offence. There is no dispute before me that while the complaint, which is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Jalandhar pertains to the offence u/s 56 of the FERA for violating the provisions of Section 8(1) of the FERA whereas the charge sheet filed before the Specia Judge at Patiala for the offences that are stated to have been committed by the accused are under Sections 420, 351, 468, 471, 477A and 120B of the Indian Pe-nal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In view of This, though the period to which both the complaint as well as the charge sheet relate may be the same yet by no stretch of imagination can it he said that the petitioner is being proceeded against for the same offence. As has been pointed out in the reply by the CBK the complaint pertains to the violations of FERA while the charge sheet deals with cheating, forgery, fabrication of documents and their misues as well as abuse of official position in which the petitioner was placed. The offences are in no way connected with one and the other except to the extent that the petitioner was the motivating force behind the commission of all these offences.

Iiuview, of this, there is, in my opinion, no merit in the submission that Section 186 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would be attracted to the facts of the present case and would make it obligatery for this Court to quash the second proceedings.

For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed