Supreme Court of India
C.B.I. versus PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY on 11 December 2018
A
C.B.I.
v.
PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY
(Ciminal Appeal No. 601 of 2009)
DECEMBER 11, 2018
B
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 – Applicabilityof – Held: In the instant case, the matter was pending in the trialCourt in relation to certain offences alleged to have been committedCby the respondent, which were punishable under the Penal Code,1860 and FCRA – Insofar as applicability of the provisions of theFCRA were concerned, the same could be decided properly onlyafter the evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the material isbrought on record by means of evidence against the appellant inthe case – It is not appropriate to examine the issue at this stage inDthese proceedings – The parties can raise this plea of applicabilityof FCRA only after the prosecution adduces the evidence on merits– Trial Court to records its findings at that stage in accordance withlaw – Penal Code, 1860.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealENo. 601 of 2009.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2006 of the HighCourt of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.115 of1999.
Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Suhasini Sen (for Arvind Kumar Sharma), Advs.Ffor the Appellant.
Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ashok Arora, Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms.Nina Gupta, Dhawal Jain, Ms. Palak Chadha, P.V. Yogeswaran, Advs.for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered byGABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated04.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CriminalRevision Petition No.115 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed therevision petition filed by the respondent herein.
H
C.B.I. v. PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
2. By order dated 26.03.2007, this Court issued notice limited tothe question on the correctness of the High Court’s order so far as itrelates to the applicability of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976(hereinafter referred to as the “FCRA”).
3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perusedthe written submissions filed by the respondent.
4. It is not in dispute that the matter is sub judice and pending inthe Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in a case titled CBIvs. Nemi Chand Jain and others in relation to certain offences allegedto have been committed by the respondent, which are punishable underthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) andFCRA.
5. In our view, the issue with regard to the applicability of theprovisions of the FCRA to the case at hand can be decided more properlyonly after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the material, ifany, is brought on record by means of evidence against the appellant inthe case.
6. At the initial stage of the proceedings in this case, it does notappear appropriate or possible to probe this issue and decide it on meritsone way or the other for want of adequate material. It is for this reason,we decline to examine the issue at this stage in these proceedings andleave the parties to raise this plea only after the prosecution adduces theevidence on merits. The Trial Court will then record its finding at thatstage in accordance with law while disposing of the case.
7. Since the trial is pending for quite a long time, we direct theconcerned Magistrate to proceed with the matter and dispose of thesame in accordance with law within a period of one year from the dateof this order without being influenced by any of the observations of theHigh Court made in the impugned order and in this order. In fact, werefrain ourselves from recording any finding on various submissionsurged by the learned counsel for the respondent in his written submissionsin the light of what we have observed supra.
8. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of.
Ankit Gyan
Appeal disposed of.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H