IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8536 of 2010 Between: Mohd.Raheemuddin Ansari and 2 others ..... PETITIONERS/A2, A5 & A6 And The State, represented by CBI, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8536 of 2010 ORDER: A2, A5 and A6 in C.C.No.1646/2005 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad have filed this criminal petition u/sec.482 Cr.P.C seeking to quash the proceedings in the said calendar case. The petitioners/A2, A5 and A6 have been charged for the offences punishable under Sec.6 r/w.Sec.23 of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and under Sec.120-B of IPC. That in the year 1976, A1, who is no more now (died on 12.03.2010) had established A5-Association in the name of “Anjuman- E-Husamia Educational Association” (hereinafter referred to as “the Association”), with an avowed object of imparting education to Muslim boys and girls and providing them free boarding and lodging etc. A2 was the Secretary, A3 was the Joint Secretary by then, who was subsequently disassociated himself from the said Association, and A4 was the Treasurer, who is no more now, to the said Association. A6 was the one of the institutions under the said Association. The said Association had established number of schools in Telangana area and is imparting free education to Muslim boys and girls. It had also established A6-college by name Jamia Islamia Darul- Uloom at Rajendranagar in an extent of Ac.13.00 of land, consisting of hostels, library, mosque, administrative building and playground. In the year 1983, the said Association was registered under A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1315 Fasli and since then the said Association had been receiving donations from donors in India and abroad. On a complaint, vide letter dated 07.01.1996 from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the Enforcement Authorities registered a case in RC.10(E)/97- Hyd on 31.07.1997 against the accused stating that A1 to A6 had conspired and received foreign contributions during the years 1991- 1995 without having any registration or permission from the Central Government, as contemplated under Sec.6 of the Act and thereby committed offences punishable under Sec.23 of the Act and under Sec.120-B of IPC. Prior thereto, in the year 1990, the Enforcement Authorities visited the premises of the Association and suggested that the Association should be registered under Sec.6 of the Act. Accordingly, on 20.01.1990, the Association presented a formal application to the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. However, the said application was rejected on 17.05.1991, while permitting the Association to receive foreign contributions, after obtaining prior permission from the Central Government under Sec.6(1A) of the said Act. Accordingly, another application was presented by the Association to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government seeking such permission. However, the said application was also rejected on 13.03.1996 without assigning any reasons. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs by its order dated 19.12.1996 prohibited A5-Association, including its Branches and Units with immediate effect from accepting any foreign contribution, as it is likely to affect prejudicially the public interest. As per the FIR dated 31.07.1997, A5-Association is stated to have been contravened the provisions of the Act in accepting and utilizing foreign contribution of Rs.159.08 lakhs since 1989 without obtaining registration or prior permission, as stipulated under the said Act, and the same amounts to an offence punishable under Sec.23 of the Act. All the accused except A3, who was disassociated himself from A5 Association, filed W.P.No.14694/1998, challenging the orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Government dated 17.05.1991 and 13.03.1996, whereby and whereunder the permission to register A5-Association under Sec.6 of the Act was rejected. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 02.07.2002, directing the concerned authorities to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders. While so, on 07.12.2005 all the accused filed a discharge application in Crl.M.P.9218/2005 before the trial Court and the same was dismissed on 23.08.2006. Thereafter, they have filed Crl.RC.1494/2006 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.09.2006. Subsequently, the accused had also filed a quash petition in Crl.P.No.2764/2007 before this Court and the same was also dismissed as withdrawn on 19.08.2010. Thereafter, the petitioners/A2, A5 & A6 filed this criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1646/2005 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad Sri N.Bharath Babu, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners herein submits that the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 have no application to the facts of the case, since the contributions received by A5-Association are not the foreign contributions, and they do not come within the purview of the definitions of “foreign contribution” and “foreign source”. The learned counsel further contends that A5-Association has made an application seeking registration of the Association under Sec.6(1) of the Act, however, the same was rejected for no reasons; that thereafter, the said Association made an application before the said authorities under Sec.6(1A) of the Act seeking permission to receive foreign contribution, however, no orders were passed for a considerable time; that as per the provisions of Sec.11(2) of the Act, if the application filed under Sec.6(1A) of the Act is not disposed of within 90 days, the permission sought for be deemed to have been granted; that the concerned authorities subsequently passed prohibitory orders on 19.12.1996; that in the circumstances, the petitioners herein are compelled to file the present criminal petition. On the other hand, Sri P.Kesavarao, the learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI, submits that the quash petition is misconceived and not maintainable; that the same is also not maintainable on merits; that the contributions received by A5-Society would come under the purview of foreign contributions, as per the definitions of “foreign contribution” and “foreign source”; that the trial Court dismissed the discharge application filed by the accused in Crl.M.P.9218/2005 on 23.08.2006, holding that the prosecution has made out prima facie case against the accused; that the trial Court has taken into consideration the same contentions, as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein and negatived the same; that challenging the said orders, the accused filed Crl.RC.1494/2006 before this Court, however, for the reasons best known to them, the accused have withdrawn the said Crl.RC; that as the accused have withdrawn Crl.RC.1494/2006, the orders passed by the trial Court in Crl.M.P.9218/2005 have become final; that without resorting to file statutory revision against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.9218/2005, the petitioners/accused have also filed Crl.P.2764/2007 seeking to quash the proceedings in CC.1646/2005 and obtained interim stay; that the same was also withdrawn by the petitioners/accused for the reasons best known to them, without seeking any liberty to file similar petition once again; that A5-Association, without prior permission and/or registration, have received foreign contributions in lakhs of rupees from Jeddah, Riyaz, UAE, Dahra, Canada, USA, Kuwait, KSA, Toronto etc.; that the foreign contributions are from the individuals residing abroad, as well as from the institutions like association of individuals, including Ministry of Awtraf; that all these foreign contributions are squarely fall under the definition of “foreign source” as defined under Sec.2(e) of the Act; that all the contributions received by A5-Association are in contravention of the statutory provisions of the said Act in general and under Secs.6 and 23 in particular; that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused in the criminal revision petition as well as criminal petition are one and the same, and therefore, this criminal petition is misconceived and is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Heard both sides and perused the record. As seen from the record, the accused earlier filed a discharge application before the trial Court in Crl.M.P.No.9218/2005 in CC.1646/2005 and the learned counsel for the accused raised the same contentions, as raised in this criminal petition. The trial Court after considering the contentions of both sides, dismissed the said Crl.M.P.No.9218/2005 by order dated 23.08.2006, observing that the prosecution has made out prima facie case against the accused. Being aggrieved, the accused filed Crl.R.C.No.1494/2006 and same was dismissed as withdrawn. Later, they have filed Crl.P.No.2764/2007 seeking to quash the proceedings in the calendar case in question, but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn. Later they have filed this criminal petition, raising similar contentions, as raised before the trial Court. The prime contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners herein that A5-Association has not been receiving any foreign contributions and it is only receiving donations from the individuals in India, and the donations received by A5-Association do not come under the purview of the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. The learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI has placed some papers showing the contributions received by A5-Association for the period 01.04.1992 to 31.03.1993. The said papers show that A5- Association has received donations from the individuals of Jeddah, Riyaz, Kuwait, UAE etc. Whether the said donations would come under purview of the Act or not are to be decided during course of trial. As observed by the trial Court, there is prima facie material against the petitioners/accused. According to the learned Special Standing Counsel for CBI, the trial Court has framed the charges against the accused and gave schedule for trial. In the circumstances, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings in CC.No.1646/2005 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad, by invoking the inherent powers under Sec.482 of Cr.P.C. The Criminal Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial of CC.No.1646/2005 and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. ____________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J Dated: 11.11.2011 Dsr