IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 1203 of 2005(A) -------------------------------------- CC. NO. 54/2002 OF ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ECONOMIC OFFENCES), ERNAKULAM. .................... PETITIONER/ ACCUSED: ----------------------------------- A.FIROZ KHAN, S/O.ALIKUTTY, SHAMILA MANZIL, TC 35/1054, VALLAKKDAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.ANIL. RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AND STATE: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX, POOMKULAM, VELLAYANI P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 522. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. SRI. P. PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT S.G FOR R1. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. V. GIRI, J. ------------------------------- Crl.M.C..NO. 1203 of 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 ORDER Alleging infraction of the provisions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act apparently proceedings were taken against the petitioner and this led to an adjudication order dated 24.4.1997 imposing on him penalty to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. The petitioner did not pay the penalty imposed on him and therefore a notice was sent to him drawing his attention to the provisions of section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, which provides that failure to pay penalty imposed by the competent authority will by itself constitute an offence punishable under section 57 of the said Act read with sub sections (3) and (4) of section 49 of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Thereafter the present Annexure-C complaint was filed in 2002 by the competent authority and according to the petitioner he was not served with any summons and therefore he could not appear before the court. Though Annxure-C complaint was originally taken to file as CC.No.54/2002, it was later transferred to long pending cases as L.P.No.55/2004. A warrant of arrest was also issued against the petitioner. At this juncture the petitioner has approached this court seeking to quash Annexure-C complaint as such. No grounds have CRMC.1203 /2005 2 been made out to quash Annexure-C. Annexure -C proceedings in CC.No.54/2002 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam are now renumbered as LP.No.55/2004. The fact that an appeal is preferred against an adjudication order will not operate as a statutory bar, as regards the enforcement of the order imposing penalty. If the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the appellate forum, he should have moved the said forum for an interim order as such. Mere pendency of the appeal does not keep in abeyance of the order imposing penalty. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings in Annexure-C. The Crl.M.C. is dismissed. But I make it clear that any observation as above is not intended to act as a finding on the contention of the petitioner as regards the maintainability of the complaint or the proceedings arising therefrom. V. GIRI, JUDGE. pmn/ CRMC.1203 /2005 3