TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Infact, it is not so. It is a case of the appellant-CBI, that the foreign contributions were received by the respondent from different entities in the foreign country, without permission from the Government. On the other hand, the case of the respondent, in defence, is that he has received such funds from his father Mr. Vipin Khanna. Appeal allowed. - Criminal Appeal No. 1572 of 2019 [ Arising out of S. L. P. ( Crl. ) No. 1420 of 2017 ] - - - Dated:- 17-10-2019 - R. Banumathi And R. Subhash Reddy, JJ. JUDGMENT R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This civil appeal is filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short CBI ), through the Investigating Officer, CBI/SPE, ACP, New Delhi, aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 30.11.2015, passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 2784 of 2011 and Criminal M.C. No. 3342 of 2011. 3. The aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Cases were filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C. ). Vide Crl. M.C. No. 2784 of 2011, the respondent-petitioner sought quashing of First Informatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion 4(1) of FCRA, 1976. 10. It was the case of the respondent-petitioner, that the funds which were received, were gifts from his father, Mr. Vipin Khanna, an Indian passport holder. It was his case that the foreign entities through whom such funds were sent, were holding the same on behalf of his father, Mr.Vipin Khanna. After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and by order dated 05.07.2011, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance under Section 35 read with Section 3 of FCRA, 2010. As the offence was committed, when the FCRA, 1976 was in force, the appellant-CBI has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 2 of 2011 before the Revisional Court i.e. the Special Judge, CBI-03, New Delhi. The Revisional Court, by order dated 20.08.2011, on the ground that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi has committed a jurisdictional error , by proceeding under the wrong provision of law, allowed the Revision Petition, thereby providing that cognizance is deemed to have been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the FCRA, 1976. 11. So far as such order passed by the Revisional Court is con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 08.07.2014, allowed the petition and directed the authorities to take decision afresh after hearing the respondent-petitioner. Thereafter, no decision was taken. 14. Before the High Court, the quash petition filed by the respondent was opposed by the appellant herein, stating that the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, by the respondent, is not maintainable, as the allegations made in the F.I.R and charge-sheet, prima facie discloses the commission of offence under Section 23 read with Section 4 of FCRA Act, 1976. The F.I.R. was registered on sanction by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, vide letter dated 18.12.2006, by which, the appellant-C.B.I was authorized under Section 28 of the FCRA, 1976, to investigate receipt of foreign funds amounting to ₹ 9.60 crores by the respondent, who was the then MLA of Punjab, from eight overseas Companies, without obtaining prior permission from the Central Government. It was their case before the High Court that charge-sheet was filed before the FCRA, 2010 came into force on 01.05.2011 and it was further pleaded on their behalf that the Revisional Court has rightly held that cognizance and summo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accordingly, a fresh hearing was granted on 09.03.2015, however, till date no decision is taken thereon by the Ministry. 16. Initially, cognizance was taken by the trial court under provisions of FCRA, 2010. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant-CBI has filed the Revision. The Revision Authority, by order dated 20.8.2011, has allowed the Revision. The Revisional Authority, in its order dated 20.08.2011, has observed that the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi, has committed a jurisdictional error and has proceeded under the wrong provision of law. It was further observed that while allowing the Revision, cognizance is deemed to have been taken under Section 23 read with Section 4 of the FCRA, 1976. 17. About the order of the Revisional Authority, mainly it was the grievance of the respondent that Revisional Authority has passed the order, without giving notice and opportunity. 18. We have heard Sri Rana Mukherjee, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Sri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned order and other material placed on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd also on behalf of one of the entities i.e New Heaven Nominees , the High Court has committed an error in recording a finding in favour of the respondent. The High Court also committed an error in observing that, even otherwise, there is material to show that funds were indeed a gift from father of the respondent and the prosecution has neither disputed the said fact as false nor alleged that the funds in question did not belong to the father of the respondent. The said observation made by the High Court is also contrary to the record. 23. When it is mainly the defence of the respondent that the funds were received from his father, burden is on him to prove that he received such funds from his father, as such, no permission was required. Even with regard to applicability of provisions under FCRA, 1976, findings are to be recorded after trial. 24. Learned senior counsel Sri Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the respondent, in support of his argument, relied on the judgment of this Court, in the case of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority v. Manilal Gordhandas and Ors. (1996) 11 SCC 482 Learned senior counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
