TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 535X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Appellate Board, New Delhi. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of these applications are these : By order dated November 12, 1992, the Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, imposed total penalties of Rs. 15 lakhs ; Rs. 1,00,70,000 ; Rs. 2,00,000, Rs. 7,50,000, Rs. 1,35,20,000 on the petitioners herein respectively and called upon them to pay the said penalties within 45 days of the receipt of the said order. The order was served on the petitioners in November, 1992. However, the penalties imposed were not paid despite the expiry of 45 days. Therefore, reminder notices were also served on the petitioners in August, 1993. Hence, the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, filed the complaints against the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Initially, the above Crl. O. Ps. were admitted and stay ordered but, ultimately, the said quashing petitions were also dismissed since there was no bar to the institution of the complaints. It is obvious on perusal of the petitions, grounds and other records filed along with them, that appeals before the Appellate Board were filed in the year 1992, and they are still pending. Having failed in their attempts to stall the proceedings in the criminal prosecutions by filing the writ petition and consequent stay orders by the trial court and the quashing applications, now the petitioners have approached this court for simpliciter stay as the commencement of trial in all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pending disposal of the writ petition before this court and the stay of the proceedings pending disposal of the earlier quashing applications. After the disposal of the writ petition and the earlier quashing applications the stay pending disposal of the appeals before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi, would in my view, be tantamount to disturbing the findings given in the earlier quashing applications. Mr. Raghunathan, learned counsel would cite a decision held by the Division Bench of this court in Asst. Director, Enforcement Directorate v. Hameed Jahuffer [1998] 93 Comp. Cas. 262 (Mad.) ; [1996] 1 MLJR 260, wherein, it has been observed as follows (page 268) : "We consider it necessary to point out that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied, the Appellate Board is obliged to dispose of the claim made and that too within a reasonable period." Therefore, it is for the petitioners to request the Appellate Board for early disposal of the appeals which were filed in the year 1992 and in the event of the appeals being allowed by the Board, then the ■ petitioners could very well point out to the trial court to establish that the prosecutions would not stand. In this context, I must refer to yet another observation made by the Division Bench in the above judgment which reads as follows (page 270): "We make by clear that the criminal court shall be within its rights, to judicially deal with the situation as pointed out by the apex court in P. Jayappan v. S. K. Peruma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
