IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER TUESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2008 / 5TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 4538 of 2003 CC.40/2001 of ADDL.CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (E & O),ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED: K. PREMAN, S/O. KUMARAN, KALPAKA SWEETS, MAIN ROAD, VADAKARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT: ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, CALICUT. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.M.V.RAMACHANDRAN THAMPI,ADDL.CGSC SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2008, THE COURT ON 25/03/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No.4538 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March 2008 ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be disposed of without going into the merit of the contentions raised by the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is being tried before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court (Economic Offences), Ernakulam for the offence punishable under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Section 49 of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 on the allegation that he had failed to remit the penalty of Rs.50,000/- imposed on him under Annexure-B order passed by the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Calicut. 3. According to the petitioner, there was no willful default on his part as alleged by the prosecution. In fact Crl.M.C.No.4538 OF 2003 :: 2 :: petitioner had preferred Annexure-C appeal against Annexure-B order before the appellate authority which was registered as appeal No.298/96 as revealed from Annexure-E communication from the said authority. It is contended by the learned counsel that the prosecution was totally misconceived and premature. 4. Anyhow, it is brought to my notice that the penalty of Rs.50,000/- had been recovered from the petitioner along with other charges. The receipts issued by the Tahsildar, Vadakara have been made available for perusal. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that the amount has been recovered. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason why the prosecution launched against the petitioner should be allowed to continue any further. However, as regards the question whether petitioner would be liable to pay any fine in the changed circumstance, I am of the view that the matter has to be remitted back to the trial court. Ordered accordingly. Crl.M.C.No.4538 OF 2003 :: 3 :: In the peculiar facts and circumstances, petitioner shall be allowed to be represented by his counsel before the trial court, if such a motion is made on his behalf. The learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders in the matter in accordance with law. Petitioner shall appear before the trial court through his counsel on June 16, 2008. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes