Mr. R. L. Gupta. J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed under Section 482 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Code for short) for quashing a com-plaint filed by first respondent against the petitioner and others for violationof Sections 8 (1), 9 (1) (b) (d) and (f) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1973 (FERA for short ). Theomplaint is alleged to be pending in the Courtof learned ACMM, New Delhi. ( 2 ) IT is alleged in the complaint that in August/september, 1985officers of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi had carried out searchesof the residential premises of the petitioner (cited as the first accused) andco-accused 2, 3 and 5, namely, S/shri Nanak Singh, Chanan Singh andmadan Mohan Abbot as also that of one Sh. K. S. Butalia. Certain incriminating documents were recovered and seized. The investigation revealed thatduring 1988, an association of the individuals consisting of Didar Singh andaccused 2 to 4, without the previous general or special permission from therbi as required under Section 8 (1) of the FERA acquired foreign exchangeof US Dollars 4,10. 000. 00and also without such permission transferred theforeign exchange for placing outside India to the credit of the petitioner, aperson other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange. Thus the petitioner and other accused persons made themselves liable to be proceededunder Section 8 (1) of the FERA. Investigation also revealed that during1980 the petitioner made payments of amounts totalling Rs. 33,87,000. 00 inindia to the said Association of individuals by order or on behalf of personsresident outside India in considerations for or in association with the receiptof payment in foreign exchange by a person outside India and therebyrenderd himself liable under Section 9 (1) (d) and (f) of the FERA. Didar Singhdied on 1-1-85 and so the proceedings against him abated. Accused 2 to 5 werestated to be liable u/sec. 68 (1) of the FERA, being a Company of individualswho at the time of the contravention were incharge of and responsible to thecompany for the conduct of its business. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. Three contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. 68 (1) of the FERA, being a Company of individualswho at the time of the contravention were incharge of and responsible to thecompany for the conduct of its business. ( 3 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for theparties. Three contentions have been raised on behalf of the petitioner. (1)That the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance did not apply his judicialmind in order to see whether the accused was required to be summoned ornot; f2) The presumption under Section 72 of the FERA upon which thedepartment has heavily relied in support of their allegations in the complaintwas not available; (3) That from the impugned complaint dated 30-6-86 andthe documents filed in support thereof, no offence is made out against thepetitioner. ( 4 ) ALL, these contentions have been refuted on behalf of the department and I have given my due consideration to the rival contentions. Thefirst submission that the cognizance is not properly taken does not seem to besound. At page 36-A of the paper book, there is an order of the learnedmetropolitan Magistrate dated 30-6-1986 by which he took cognizance. It isas follows :- PRESENT: Shri J. C. Makhija, Assistant Director, Complainantwith Sh. M. V Raman, Adv. Fresh complaint filed u/sec. 56 of the FERA. Perused. I takecognizance of the said offence. File be put up before the concernedcourt of Ld. ACMM on 17-7-86. Sd/- MM. ND20-6-86. "it may be kept in mind that it is not a private complaint wherein someevidence was required to be recorded by the Magistrate so that after recording evidence he could have said that there were prima facie reasons to believethat a case was made out against the accased persons. It is specificallyprovided in Section 200 of the Code that if the complaint is filed by a publicservant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, themagistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses. So in thiscase it is recorded by the learned Magistrate that he perused the complaintand took cognizance. I think there was sufficient compliance and thecognizance seems to have been properly taken. Learned Counsel for thepetitioner has relied upon a case of Tula Ram and Others v. Kishore Singh,1977 SCC (Crl.) 621. I have carefully perused this authority. It pertains toa private complaint and has no application to the facts of this case. I think there was sufficient compliance and thecognizance seems to have been properly taken. Learned Counsel for thepetitioner has relied upon a case of Tula Ram and Others v. Kishore Singh,1977 SCC (Crl.) 621. I have carefully perused this authority. It pertains toa private complaint and has no application to the facts of this case. ( 5 ) SO far as availability of presumption under Section 72 of thefera is concerned, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that evenif the presumption is not available, it does not preclude the prosecution fromindependently proving its case. In this case incriminating documents wereallegedly seized from the residence of K. S. Butalia. He is not an accused inthe case and is being cited as a witness. Therefore, it is possible that thepresumption under Section 72 of the FERA may not be available to theprosecution. But learned Counsel for the respondent seems to have rightlycontended that prosecution is entitled to prove its case independently fromother evidence. In this respect my attention has been drawn to certaincircumstances showing prima facie involvement of the petitioner. I havecarefully gone through these circumstances. At this stage it is not possiblefor me to say that there is no prima facie case against the petitioner on thebasis of these circumstances. It is stated in the complaint that the petitionerpaid over Rs. 33 lacs to the Company of Accused 2 to 5 either on his ownbehalf or on behalf of other individuals in lieu of corresponding receipt/payments in USA. Then the prosecution intends to prove from the seizedaccounts through the statement of the writer/author of these accounts,namely. Madan Mohan Abbot dated 6-8-85, as also from the documentsseized from the residence of the petitioner himself. Then it is also contendedthat it is to be proved that the petitioner, in his statement first denied knowing the main operators of this racket, but later on accepted the same whenhis attention was drawn to his earlier statement, and so on. However, it isdifferent as to how many of these circumstances, the prosecution is able toprove during the evidence and what may be their impact. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the view that it is not a fitcase for interference under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, before parting with this case. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I am of the view that it is not a fitcase for interference under Section 482 of the Code. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, before parting with this case. I may point out that thecomplaint in this case was filed in 1986 and the offence is alleged to be of theyear 1980. It is. therefore, desirable that this case is dealt with expeditiouslyby the learned Trial Court. It will complete the trial as early as possible,"preferably within four months.