9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Regulation Act, 1973 ('FERA') for non-realization of export proceeds by M/s. Kwality Jewellers (India) Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to 'the company') of which the Appellant was a Director till 31st May 1995. 2. The Directorate of Enforcement ('DoE') initiated the proceedings under FERA by issuing a memorandum dated 28th September 2000 to the company and its Directors/Managing Directors, i.e., Mr. L.R. Sridhar, Managing Director, Mr. Dinkar Dogra, Ex-Managing Director, Mrs. Kavita Dogra, Ex-Director (Appellant herein), Mr. Ashish Dogra, NRI Director and Mr. Kiran Chimawar, Ex-Director. 3. The case of the Appellant was that she was not an active director of the company and was not involved in any manner with the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry 2009 in Crl.M.C. No. 5062 of 2006) it is submitted that in the absence of any specific role attributable to Smt. Kavita Dogra in the memorandum, there could be no finding of contravention of the provision of FERA as far as she is concerned. 8. On the other hand Mr. Vineet Malhotra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the present case was covered squarely by the decision dated 4th June 2008 in Criminal Appeal No. 43 of 2008. Since the Appellant was admittedly a director of the company for the period during which the contravention took place, the statutory presumption under Section 68 of FERA stood attracted. 9. To begin with, the Court would like to observe that although Section 68 FERA is in the nature of a deeming provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was committed, and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company. 12. In Saroj Kumar Poddar v. State the Supreme Court explained that it is not sufficient to mechanically reproduce the language of the statutory provision to say that all the directors of the company were incharge of the day-to-day affairs and therefore, would be deemed to be guilty of the offence. In particular it was pointed out in that case that "there was no averment in the complaint petitions as to how and in what manner the appellant was responsible for the conduct of the business of the Company or otherwise responsible to it in regard to its functioning." 13. In the present case the memorandum is a cyclostyled form and the averments as reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
