LENDER JAIN ( 1 ) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner, who is a practising advocate, anc it was treated as a public Interest Litigation . On 22. 9. 1987 this Court, after hearing some arguments, confined the prayer in the writ petition to the following effect "issue writ of mandamusto Respondent No. 1 for holding respondent No,2 and 3 guilty on facts alleged in Notice dated 5. 2. 1987 and also on charges admitted by Shri L. M. Thapar in his letter of apology dated 16. 10. 1986, and thereupon deal with respondents No. 2 and 3 in an exemplary manner to compel them to bring to this country huge amounts of foreign exchange as required by law and to pay all penalties to be imposed on them for commission of these serious offences adrnitted or pending investigation. " ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner is that respondent No. 2 had given a letter of apology to the Government of India, which has been accepted as per the news item appearing in the issue of The Hindustan Times dated 18. 10. 1986 ( annexure-E to the writ petition at page-37 ). The Court thereafter on 22. 9. 1987 directed the respondent No. l-Union of India and Director, Enforcement Directorate, Foreign Exchange, to file an affidavit puffing on record whether such an apology, as reported in the press, was ever tendered by respondent No. 2 and if so the action taken by the Union of Indi a. The petitioner has alleged that on 2. 9. 1986 more than hundred officers and man of Enforcement Directorate raided the Thapar Group of Companies and also the residences of the Directors and top Executives of the Companies at Phagwara, Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta on the allegation of serious violations of foreign exchange. Respondent No. 2 was arrested on 5. 9. 1986 by the officials of respondent No. 1 and he was produced before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded him to judicial custody till 9. 9. 1986. It has also been alleged in the petition that thet itioner on the same day in late night was granted. bail by the Supreme Court whilele fixing the case for hearing on 9. 9. 1986. However, on 9. 9. 9. 1986. It has also been alleged in the petition that thet itioner on the same day in late night was granted. bail by the Supreme Court whilele fixing the case for hearing on 9. 9. 1986. However, on 9. 9. 1986 Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition moved by the respondent granting respondent No. 2 liberty to move the Court of Sessions for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application of respondent No. 2 on 11. 9. 1986. However, the High Court on 17. 9. 1986 granted bail to respondent No. 2 while imposing number of conditions on him. It is the case of the petitioner that on 16. 01. 1986 respondent No. 2tendered apology to the Government of India and out of 18 charges he confessed 15 charges in his letter of apology dated 16. 10. 1986. The petitioner has heavily relied on the following extracts of the letter of apology, therefore, it is necessary to reproduce the extracts of letter of apology written by respondent No. 2 | -. . . . . . . . . It is now realised that there has been a violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act as far as charges listed above are concerned. The violation, however, was unintentional and there are a number of mitigating circumstances. Most of the Joint ventures in question are doing badly and were not in a position to make payments. In most cases we had sent information to RBI or Ministry of Commerce as the case may be. These circumstances in detail would be submitted at the appropriate time. . . . . . . . . . We hereby tender unconditional apology for the above violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and assure you that htis practice will not be repeated in future. We further undertake to cooperate in adjudication proceedings, which may be instituted by the Directorate in their early disposals". . . . . . . . . . We hereby tender unconditional apology for the above violations of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and assure you that htis practice will not be repeated in future. We further undertake to cooperate in adjudication proceedings, which may be instituted by the Directorate in their early disposals". ( 3 ) THE petitioner had filed the petition contending inter alia that as an advocate practising on the Criminal Side, he was shocked that, on the basis of letter of apology, even after the voluntary confession of respondent No. 2 that violation of FERA has taken place, respondent No. 2 was not prosecuted whereas other offenders, who may have done similar offences in relation to violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (in short "fera") were prosecuted and punished. Mr. Suman Kapoor, appearing in person, has contended that the action of respondent No. 1 in not launching criminal prosecution against respondent No. 2 and to continue the same with number of other offenders in various Courts for violation of. FERA was discriminatory and in violation of Section 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has also contended that said action amounts to an act of favouritism shown by the respondent-Union of India to a wealthy and influential person whereas for similar offences hundreds of other people are prosecuted by the Directorate of Enforcement. Mr. Kapoor has further contended that there is no provision under the FERA and there is no immunity from prosecution except in terms of Section 60 of the FERA. Petitioner has also contended that the case of respondent No. 2 would not fall under the parameters of Section 60 of the FERA and hence any immunity granted to respondent No. 2 from prosecution was arbitrary and colourable exercise of the powers by the Union of India. Petitioner has further contended that the bail was granted to respondent No. 2 by this Courtwhile laying down the condition that foreign exchange would be repatriated and till date the foreign exchange has not been repatriated by respondent No. 2. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed various copies of Newspaper, magazines, articles written on the whole episode. I do not feel the necessity of referring them as this Court is only concerned about the proposition of law raised in this petition. Along with the petition, the petitioner has filed various copies of Newspaper, magazines, articles written on the whole episode. I do not feel the necessity of referring them as this Court is only concerned about the proposition of law raised in this petition. The petition was admitted by the Division Bench of this Court keeping in view the exercise of powers by Union in a case where allegation for flight of non-repatriation of huge amount of money in foreign exchange was alleged and purported discrimination alleged in executive actions. Petitioner has also contended that respondent No. 1 was under legal duty to enforce the revenue laws including FERA uniformally and expeditiously and the failure to do so suggests conspiracy and collusion between Union and big business houses including respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In these premises, petitioner has sought issuance of an appropriate writ so that the majesty and rule of law is upheld. In sum and substance, the arguments of the petitioner is that whether on the basis of a letter of apology, the Union of India can drop the prosecution in view of no provision relating to amensty in FERA. The other argument, which is advanced by the petitioner, is that as to what are the guidelines in this regard and whether the action taken by the Union of India is on the basis of said guidelines. Whether the guidelines give rooms for arbitrary and capricious action to Union of India? Petitioner has further contended that if the application, which was moved by the Enforcement Directorate for the judicial remand and custody of respondent No. 2 is taken into consideration, it would show that at one stage Union of India was so serious to initiate action against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Why sudden change took place in one month not to prosecute respondent Nos,2 and 3? The excerpts from the application moved by the Enforcement Directorate before the Additional. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is as follows |- that thedocuments prima facie indicate huge amounts of non-repatriation of export proceeds and royalties, technical and management fees etc. There is a deliberate planning for not repatriating the amount, for example, it has been deliberately planned that export proceeds worth Rs. 1. 43 crores and interest at the rate of 8% thereon rnay not be recovered. Besides, in the case of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. There is a deliberate planning for not repatriating the amount, for example, it has been deliberately planned that export proceeds worth Rs. 1. 43 crores and interest at the rate of 8% thereon rnay not be recovered. Besides, in the case of M/s. Karam Chand Thapar and Bros. , the company has tried to project that the hotel project of the company abroad will not be remunerative as reflected in their Balance Sheet, but on the other hand, a sister concern, i. e. M/s. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. which has got the same directors has invested equivalent of US $ 1. 5 million in the form of equity contribution and export of goods worth US $ 6 lacs in the hotel project. Shri Shyam Sunder Lal was arrested on 4. 9. 1986 and grounds of arrest haw been explained to him. The matter is at a very crucial stage of investigation and has got international ramification and accused person is a very rich man and influential person and is likely to hamper the investigation if released on bail at this stage. " ( 4 ) THE counter-affidavit to this writ petition was filed by Shri A K Tewari, assistant Director (Enforcement) on behalf of the respondent-Union of India. In paragraph-C of this counter-affidavit, it has been deposed by the respondent that the Government decided to take a lenient view in respect of Shri Thapar, respo ndent No. 2, subject to his cooperation in adjudication proceedings and it was decided that adjudication proceedings would continue and the party would be fully liable to all consequences including penalties. In the said affidavit, it is also stated that as per the show cause notices issued, the repatriable amount was about Rs. 14 crores and the exact amount would be determined by the adjudication proceedings. However, Rs. 1. 64 crores had been repatriated tilli the time of filing of the affidavit, which was filed on 28. 10. 1988. It was further stated in the affidavit that no decision in respect of launching of prosecution was yet taken so far. The decision in launching the prosecution or otherwise will be taken after completion of adjudication proceedings in all 31 show cause notices issued. In the affidavit, it was noted that the apology was tendered by respondent No. 2. 1988. It was further stated in the affidavit that no decision in respect of launching of prosecution was yet taken so far. The decision in launching the prosecution or otherwise will be taken after completion of adjudication proceedings in all 31 show cause notices issued. In the affidavit, it was noted that the apology was tendered by respondent No. 2. However, it was stated in the affidavit that the prosecution proceedings were normally launched by the Enforcement Directorate after completion of adjudication proceedings. It was also stated in the affidavit thatrespondent No. 2 had not been granted any immunity from prosecution under Section 60 of FERA. It was also contended in the affidavit that the petitioner-has no locus standi to file the present writ petition. It was also stated in the affidavit that the prosecution was normally launched by the Enforcement Directorate after completion of adjudication proceedings and there are elaborate guidelines prescribed by the directorate for launching of prosecution and the same is practised in other cases. Though in the said affidavit, the guidelines issued from time to time was stated to be enclosed as annexure-A but no guidelines were filed along with, said affidavit, It was also stated that action not to launch prosecution was not on account of apology tendered by respondent No. 2. ( 5 ) DURING the course of hearing when this Court pointed out that no such guidelines were on the record, the learned Counsel for. respondent No. 1, Mr. M. M. Sareen, filed the guidelines along with affidavit of one Mr. A K Mitra, Assistant Director on 5. 4. 1995. ( 6 ) MR. M. VENKATRAMAN, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has argued that the action of respondent No. 1 in not launching the prosecution against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was not on account of any influence or pressure exercised by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 over respondent No. 1 but keeping in view the provisions of FERA and the rules and guidelines framed thereunder, respondent No. 1 could not have prosecuted respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. 2 and 3 was not on account of any influence or pressure exercised by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 over respondent No. 1 but keeping in view the provisions of FERA and the rules and guidelines framed thereunder, respondent No. 1 could not have prosecuted respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Venkatraman has laid great emphasis on Section 61 of the FERA, which deals with cognizance of offences particularly the proviso to Section 61 of FERA, which is as follows |- "provided that where any such offence is the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any rule, direction or order made thereunder which prohibits the doing of an act without permission, no such complaint shall be made unless the person accused of the offence has been given an opportunity of showing that he had such permission. " ( 7 ) MR. VENKATRAMAN has also contended that it was not necessary that permission from Reserve Bank of India (in short "rbi") has to be a previous permission as the principle object of Section 29 of FERA is to regulate and not altogether to ban the carrying on in India activity contemplated by Clause (a) and the acquisition of an undertaking or shares in India of the character mentioned in Clause (b) and, therefore, the Parliament did not intend to adopt too rigid an attitude in the matter and it was let to RBI to grant permission, previous or ex post facto, onditional or unconditional. In the present case the alleged offence or violation, if any, committed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was on account of delay caused by the joint ventures, which were started by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the delay was on account of the working group which consisted of representatives of RBI, Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Industries. Mr. Venkatraman has also contended that whether a person charged for contravention of Section 5 of the FERA has shown cause against the charge then the duty of the Directorate is to conduct an enquiry into the charges and give a finding on the charges and there is no provision in the Act and the relevant rules to find the person guilty of his own plea. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on M. S. M. Syed Mohammad Bukhariv. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and ors. AIR 1977madras23. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied on M. S. M. Syed Mohammad Bukhariv. The Director of Enforcement, New Delhi and ors. AIR 1977madras23. Much stress has been laid by Mr. Venkatraman, that in 30 odd show cause notices, which were issued by respondent No. 1 against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, 30 show cause notices had been decided/adjudicated. Only in one show cause notice dated 5. 2. 1987, proceedings are still pending. Out of these 30 show causes notices, in 26 cases no case has been made out against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and in relation to 3 show causes notices where adjudication order has been passed against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, appeals are pending before the FERA Board. On the basis of these facts, Mr. Venkatraman has contended that no undue favour was shown to respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as a matter of fact respondent No" 1 could not have prosecuted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in view of the proviso to Section 61 of the FERA. Counsel has also contended that dropping of 26 cases at the stage of adjudication itself shows that even if prosecution was launched, it would have resulted in futility as nothing could have been achieved by the prosecution except to harass respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Venkatraman has also stated,that all conditions imposed by this Court while granting bail to respondent No. 2 have been observed. It has also been stated that approximately Rs. 7 crores have been repatriated in India and nothing remains to be repatriable and delay in repatriation of the aforesaid amount was on account of the working group. Respondent No. 2 had filed his own affidavit and has also stated that he has faithfully and duly complied with the conditions imposed on him while granting bail to him. ( 8 ) MR. SAREEN, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1- Union of India,has contended that there are elaborate guidelines for prosecution. He has argued that in this case letter of apology was not considered for taking a lenient view with regard to prosecution of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It was the guidelines, which were the basis for not initiating prosecution against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He has also invited the attention of this Court to the Circular Order (TECH) No. 6/78 which deals with guidelines regarding prosecution. 2 and 3. It was the guidelines, which were the basis for not initiating prosecution against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He has also invited the attention of this Court to the Circular Order (TECH) No. 6/78 which deals with guidelines regarding prosecution. Paragraph-4 of the said Circular deals with offences where prosecution has to be launched on account of non-repatriation of export proceeds and where non-repatriation is mala fide and deliberate, in these cases there is no option but to prosecute the offender. Mr. Sareen has contended that prosecution cannot be launched if non-repatriation is neither mala fide nor deliberate. He has argued that from the facts of this case at the relevant time, the Department was in the process of investigating the matter and, therefore, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not prosecuted. Mr. Sareen has also taken me to paragraph-5 of the said Circular which inter alia states that the complaint should be filed in Court only if adequate evidence is available and there is a fair chance of successful prosecution. This paragraph further goes to show that when adequate evidence is not available, Department may be indirectly helping the offender by filing a complaint against him as on account of insufficiency of evidence, decision of the Court is bound to be unfavourable to Department. Other guidelines were filed by respondent No. 1 dated 14. 8. 1984, which inter alia stated that after the receipt of the copy adjudication order, it will be the responsibility of the investigation officer to examine whether the case falls under the guidelines for prosecution pursuant to the Technical Circular Order No. 6/78 and as soon as the adjudication order is received the investigation officer should put up the file to the Assistant Director concened with his recommendation. If the Assistant Director agrees that. no action for prosecution is called for, the file can be sent to the Section with the approval of Assistant Director and if it is felt that it is a fit case for the prosecution, the file should be put up to the Deputy Director with a proposal to be sent to the Head Office for approval of prosecution. In all such cases proposal should reach the Head Office within a month from the date of the adjudication order. Further in paragraph-4 of the Circular dated 14. 8. In all such cases proposal should reach the Head Office within a month from the date of the adjudication order. Further in paragraph-4 of the Circular dated 14. 8. 1984 it has been stated that failure to prosecute, any charge would otherwise fall under the guidelines, is a serious omission which will call for enquiry and serious punishment. In the additional affidavit, which this Court directed the respondent- Union of India, was filed by Mr. J A Chowdhury, Director. Enforcement Directorate on 2. 5. 1995 stating that according to the guidelines, decision with regard to launching of prosecution in relation to pending 3 cases where appeals are pending, it has been considered appropriate to decide and examine the question of prosecution after the appeals are decided by FERA Board. ( 9 ) I have heard the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 at length. The first objection of the respondent-Union of India with regard to the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain this petition cannot be sustained. Petitioner is an advocate practising on the Criminal Side in Trial Court, High Court and Supreme Court. Petitioner is very much concerned about the applicability of executive activities in a uniform manner, devoid of arbitrariness, favouritism and mala fides. Petitioner is interested in upholding of rule of law. It cannot be said that the petitioner is personally interested in the litigation. Therefore, I hold that petitioner is liable to maintain this petition. Question before me is whether the non-prosecution of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was on account of letter of apology or on account of certain norms/guidelines in this regard. Though the petitioner has alleged that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not prosecuted because of the letter of apology submitted by respondent No. 2 and this decision of respondent No. 1 not to prosecute respondent Nos. 2 and 3 emanated on account of clout of respondent No. 2 with the then Prime Minister of India. If the allegations are true then in that case, Court has to come with a heavy hand on respondent No. 1 as the law has to be equally applicable irrespective of the stature of the person, nobody can escape the law because of his or her position, status or wealth in the society. If the allegations are true then in that case, Court has to come with a heavy hand on respondent No. 1 as the law has to be equally applicable irrespective of the stature of the person, nobody can escape the law because of his or her position, status or wealth in the society. However, in this case though in the first affidavit filed in the year 1988 respondent No. 1 has stated that a lenient view was taken of the case of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 regarding prosecution. However, in the said affidavit it has been categorically stated that the lenient view, which was taken, was not on account of the letter of apology written by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 but on account of certain guidelines which were in operation at the relevant time, though these guidelines were not filed along with affidavit of Union of India in the year 1988, Now all the guidelines relevant in this regard have been filed by respondent N0. 1 and from the harmonious reading of these guidelines it emerges that the prosecution is not a general rule, prosecution has to be selective, prosecution has to be for the purposes having deterrent effect, prosecution has to be launched in cases where the Department is of the opinion that they can sustain it successfully before a courtt of law. ( 10 ) FOR the purpose of deciding this writ petition, it is also not relevant for me to go to the contentions of the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the show cause notices, which were issued numbering 30 odd majority of them have been decided in favour of respondent No. 2 and in relation to certain others, appeals have been preferred by respondent No. 2 before the Appellate Board of FERA. The scope of this writ petition is limited to the extent as to whether on the relevant date the Union exercised its discretion in not prosecuting respondent No. 2 in a bona fide manner or the discretion was exercised in whimsical, arbitrary and a mala fide manner or for extraneous considerations. ( 11 ) IN this regard the contention of Mr. Sareen that strictly speaking the prosecution was not launched against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was on account of. , guidelines issued in this regard, seems to have some force. ( 11 ) IN this regard the contention of Mr. Sareen that strictly speaking the prosecution was not launched against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was on account of. , guidelines issued in this regard, seems to have some force. Circular Order (TECH) No. 6/78 lays down the following guidelines |- "offences FIT FOR PROSECUTION I 4 (v) Non-repatriable of export proceeds where non-repatriation is mala fide and deliberate. OTHER GUIDELINES I 5 (i) The cardinal principle is that a complaints should be filed inc ourt only if adequate evidence is available and there is a fair chance of successful prosecution. Where adequate evidence is not available, we may be indirectly helping the offender, by filing a complaint against him. as the decision of the court is bound to be unfavourable and may have adverse repercussions on the pending adjudication or appeal before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. " ( 12 ) THUS, from the aforesaid guidelines what emerges is that in matters of repatriation of export proceeds where non-repatriation is mala fide and deliberate, prosecution is a must. But if repatriation of export proceeds are not mala fide and deliberate, prosecution may not be launched. The guidelines in this regard have been framed keeping in view the princi0ple of natural justice as well as the proviso to Section 61 of the FERA, which I have reproduced in the preceding paras, which postulates that no complaint shall be made where permission was required until and unless opportunity of showing that the infringer had such permission. At the very first opportunity the stand of respondent No. 2, as borne out from the letter of apology itself was that the alleged violation was unintentional and there were number of mitigating circumstances as most of the joint ventures in questions were doingbadly and were not in a position to make payments and during the course of the arguments learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, Mr. Venkatraman, has pointedly referred to the various adjudication orders which inter. alia had held that the joint ventures had suffered on account of delay caused due to non-clearance given by the working group which consisted of the representatives of RBI", Ministry of Commercce and Ministry of Industries of theGovernment of India. It would be further seen from the aforesaid guidelines that the respondent-Department was circumspect in selecting, processing and recommending prosecution. alia had held that the joint ventures had suffered on account of delay caused due to non-clearance given by the working group which consisted of the representatives of RBI", Ministry of Commercce and Ministry of Industries of theGovernment of India. It would be further seen from the aforesaid guidelines that the respondent-Department was circumspect in selecting, processing and recommending prosecution. If the Department did not ave adequate evidence and no chance of successful prosecution at that Stage, prosecution was not to be launched. Therefore, respondent No. 1 was not adequately equipped to prosecute respondent No. 2 at the relevant time in view of its own guidelines and limitations regarding information, which was to be suppliedd by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 after issuance of show cause polices. The petitioner has brought to my notice a Circular dated 14. 8. 1984 issued by the Enforcement Directorate to show that favour has been shown to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by the Directorate of Enforcement, as after adjudication proceedings in relation to two cases, out of total 30 odd cases, found respondent Nos. 2 and 3 guilty, why in relation to these two cases, within one month prosecution was not launched against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The relevant extracts of the letter dated 14. 8. 1984 is as follows |- "immediately after the receipt of the copy of the Adj Order from the Ad/dd/ade/sde/de as the case may be it will be responsibility of the Investigating Officer to examine whether the case falls under the guidelines for prosecution as preseri by the Technical Circular No. 6/ 78. In all these cases there would already be same notings in the context of para 5 (ii) of Circular No. 6/78. It is possible that in some cases prosecution have already been launched even before the completion of the Adjudication Proceedings. In such cases the date on which the complaint has been launched and other relevant references may be noted in the file. As soon as any Adj. Order is received, the nvestigating Officer should put up the file (including any file on which prosecution has already been launched.) to the Assistant Director concerned with his recommendations. In such cases the date on which the complaint has been launched and other relevant references may be noted in the file. As soon as any Adj. Order is received, the nvestigating Officer should put up the file (including any file on which prosecution has already been launched.) to the Assistant Director concerned with his recommendations. If the A. D. agree that no action for prosecution is called for, the file can be the Section with the approval of the A. D. There prosecution been recommended or the A. D. considered the case to be fit for prosecution, the file should be put up to Deputy Director with a proposal to be sent to the Head Office for approval of the prosecution. In all cases proposals should reach the Head Office within a month from the-date of the Adjudication Order. " ( 13 ) FROM the perusal of these directions, it is manifestly clear that proposals for prosecution should reach the Head Office within a month from the date of the adjudication order. Much has been said by the petitioner that why after the expiry of one month from the adjudication order in relation to aforesaid cases, the prosecution has not been launched by the Department. I am afraid that this is not the prayer in the writ petition. The petition is for the issuance of writ of mandamus to respondent No-,2 on account of charges admitted by respondent No. 2 in the letter ofapologydated16. 10. 1986. The adjudication orders were passed in the year 1992. This Court will also not go as to why prosecution was not launched in relation to these cases by the Department in the absence of any material showing mala fide or arbitrary action, which can be attributed to respondent No. 1. I am satisfied by the explanation given by the Department in this regard, may be Department was waiting for the verdict of the FERA Board with whom the appeals of respondent No. 2 in relation to these three show cause notices are pending. Moreover, prosecution has to be filed as per the guidelines when the non-repatriation is on account of deliberate. Moreover, prosecution has to be filed as per the guidelines when the non-repatriation is on account of deliberate. and mala fide action of a party, therefore, I do not find any force in the arguments of the petitioner in the absence of any material on record that the non-repatriation of foreign exchange was on account of deliberate and mala fide action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Perusing the affidavit filed by respondent No. 1, I am fortified in my opinion that the foreign exchange amounting to over Rs. 7 crores have been repatriated by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and nothing remains to be repatriated in terms of show cause notices issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent Nos. 2 and 3. ( 14 ) YET another aspect in this matter, which has been highlighted by the petitioner to show that undue favour has been shown in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was the aplication, which was filed by the Enforcement Directorate before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on 5. 9. 1986. In the said application it has been alleged by respondent No. 1 that |- ". . . . . . . . . . . THE statements of Shri L M Thapar were also recorded on 3rd and 4th September, 1986 which inter alia confirm the violations amounting to crores of rupees. However, the said Shri L M Thapar has been evastive in his replies and the investigations are at very crucial stage and admittedly the foreign exchange amounting to crores of rupees have not been repatriated to India which are due and outstanding from the foreign companies and on the contrary, the amount has been illegally either siphoned off or have not been repatriated knowingly. . . . . . . . . . . Shri L M Thapar was arrested on 4. 9. 1986 and grounds of arrest have been explained to him. The matter is at a very crucial stage of investigation and has got international ramification and accused person is very rich man and influential person and is likely, to hamper the investigation if released on bail at this stage. " ( 15 ) I would only comment that it shows a sorry state of affair in the Directorate of Enforcement. The application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 5. 9. " ( 15 ) I would only comment that it shows a sorry state of affair in the Directorate of Enforcement. The application filed by the Directorate of Enforcement on 5. 9. 1986 was clearly in violation of the guidelines issued by the Directorate particularly guidelines No. 6/78 which I have reproduced above, if the stand taken by Union of India pursuant to arguments advanced by Mr. Sareen is to be accepted. Without ascertaining as to whether the repatriation was deliberate or mala fide which was a fact which was to be ascertained from respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and the working group for the joint ventures consisting of Ministry of Commerce, Ministry of Industries and representatives of RBI, it seems that undue haste was shown in filing the aforesaid application, reflecting that all is not well in the Directorate of Enforcement. In 1988 the affidavit filed by Mr. A K Tewari, Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate under captioned of brief facts in para (h) has stated that guidelines for launching prosecution are being followed in this Directorate to observe the principle of natural justice and for uniformity. ( 16 ) IF tha t was so where was the need and occasion to file the aforesaid application and arrest respondent No. 2 on 2. 9. 1986. Yet at Paragraph- (x) of the said counter-affidavit this is what has been stated by respondent No. 1 |- ". . . . . . . It is stated that the prosecution is normally launched by the Enforcement Directorate after completion of adjudication proceedings. There are elaborate guidelines prescribed by this Directorate for launching of prosecution and this is practised in everycase. . . . . . . . . . ," ( 17 ) IF the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement were mindful of the guidelines which were in operation in relation to the cases in which respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were alleged to have violated FERA, one cannot understand the application for remand for judicial custody or opposition to bail moved by respondent No. 1, perhaps, that seems to be the reasons and change of attitude of respondent No. 1 when on September 17,1986 the Department meekly gave no objection to the grant of bail by the High Court, respondent No. 1 knew that it will be futile to oppose the bail application in view of their own guidelines. Though, the petitioner has alleged that the change of attitude was on account of personal intervention of the then Prime Minister of India. Whatever may be the case, some time populist measures may create a public europhia but these kind of actions certainly damage the credibility and functioning of the Government and worst casuality is Justice. In my considered opinion the application moved by the Department on 5. 9. 1986 was an act which was not in consonance with the guidelines as framed under FERA. Nothing has been brought on record that non-prosecution was on the basis of letter of apology, which was tendered by respondent No . 2to respondent No. 1. In my opinion, wisdom dawn - on responded No. 1 that pursuant to the guidelines enumerated in guidelines N0. 6/ 78, the case was not fit for prosecution and, therefore, prosecution was not launched against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Nothing can be seen apart from what has been required by the guidelines. The allegation of proximity of respondent No. 2 with the corridors of powers was to his disadvantage resulting in adverse publicity against all including highest court of the land. The only lesson one should learn from this case is that sometimes arm-twisting tactics deprive a citizen of his right to live with dignity and honour at the altar of over jealousness. Respondent No. 2 has suffered tremendous agony for so many years, faced adverse publicity that too when no prosecution could be launched by the Union of India, as per the guidelines. In view of the aforesaid observations, I hold that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were not treated in a discriminatory manner by respondent No. 1. I do not hold that any undue favour was shown to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 by respondent No. 1. ( 18 ) FOR the reasons recorded above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.