Judgment :- K.N. Basha, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has come forward with this Petition seeking the relief of quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the alleged offences punishable under Section 18(2), (3) read with Sections 68 and 56 (1)(i) of FERA, 1973 and Section 49(3), (4) of the FEMA, 1999 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences Wing, Egmore, Chennai in C.C. No.409 of 2002. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there are four accused in the above case and the petitioner has been implicated as A3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contented that the petitioner is a practising advocate for the last 18 years and he was also a partner of law firm M/s. Rangarajan and Prabhakaran right from the year 1988. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Complaint preferred by the respondent/complainant mainly against the Company M/s. Euro Industries (I) Limited. It is also further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been implicated one of the accused merely on the ground that the petitioner happened to be one of the directors of the first accused-Company. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the Company and further he is not in charge and responsible for the conduct of the first accused-Company. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contented that the petitioner already relinquished his status as Director through the letter dated 14. 2000 addressed to the first accused-Company and the letter dated 23. 2000 to the Registrar of Companies, Chennai, confirms this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has been included as one of the Directors only with a view to give certain legal opinions to the first accused-Company and he has no role to play in the affairs of the business of the first accused-Company and the main crux of the allegation contained in the Complaint is against the first accused-Company to the effect that it exported granite materials to United Kingdom and sale proceeds should be realised within a period of six months but the Company has not followed the provision under the FERA. 4. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as already stated that the petitioner has nothing to do with the said alleged transaction of the first accused-Company and there is also no specific allegation levelled against the petitioner herein in the Complaint and the entire allegation contained in the Complaint mainly against the first accused-Company, that in the Complaint itself it is specifically stated by the complainant to the effect that about the explanation given by the petitioner herein stated that the petitioner is nothing to do with the alleged business affairs of the Company and only he was required to give certain instructions as a legal advisor in a particular issue and as such he has become only a professional legal director on the board of the Company and he has no other role in the management or in the day to day administration of the Company. 5. Per contra , Mr. Ravi Ananatha Padma-nabhan, learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA cases submitted that there is a statutory presumption under Section 71 of FERA and therefore the burden of proof to rebut the presumption is on the accused. Learned Special Public Prosecutor further submitted that in the Complaint itself there is a reference about the show cause notice and opportunity notice. It is further contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA cases that the petitioner being a Director of the first accused-Company and as it is stated by the petitioner that the other two Directors are living in London since 1990 only the petitioner alone taking care of the day to day affairs of the Company and steps into the shoes of the Managing Director. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA Cases fairly submitted that in the adjudication proceedings conducted by the Additional Director of Income Tax the petitioner was exonerated from the liability in respect of the alleged contravention of the provisions of FERA said to have been committed by the first accused-Company. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA Cases placed the following decisions in support of the prosecution case: 1. Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1996 SCC. (Crl.) 1090; 2. High Court, Madras - M/s. Arcot Exports, Amir Mahal, Madras v. The Director of enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, 2001 (4) CTC 609 ; 3. 6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA Cases placed the following decisions in support of the prosecution case: 1. Central Bureau of Investigation v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1996 SCC. (Crl.) 1090; 2. High Court, Madras - M/s. Arcot Exports, Amir Mahal, Madras v. The Director of enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi, 2001 (4) CTC 609 ; 3. Madras High Court - The Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras-6 v. N.P.V. Ramasamy Udayar, 1997 (1) LW (Crl.) 103; on the basis of all those decisions the learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA Cases contented that in a prosecution under FERA, Court shall presume existence of certain mental state of the accused and there is no need to prove mens rea and further FERA being a special law, Sections 4 and 5 of Cr.P.C. are not applicable since FERA is a self contained code. 7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by the either side and also perused the entire material available on the record. 8. It is an unfortunate case wherein the petitioner who is a practising lawyer for more than 20 years, as a partner in a firm namely M/s EURO Industries (India) Ltd., Chennai, has been implicated as one of the accused. It is needless to state that in the Complaint it is specifically stated that the petitioner has come forward with the clear version that he has nothing to do with the day to day affairs of the Company and further he is not in charge and responsible for the business of the Company. It is also further seen from the perusal of the Complaint preferred by the respondent, the main allegation levelled only against the first accused-Company. The allegation is that the accused having exported granite slabs and monuments not realised the sale proceeds within the stipulated period of six months thereby contravenes the provisions under FERA. It is also pertinent to note that there is absolutely no whisper made in the Complaint to the effect that the petitioner being one of the Cirector who was in charge and responsible for the business of the Company. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has resigned from the position of the Director as early as on 12. 2000. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioner has resigned from the position of the Director as early as on 12. 2000. 9. As it is rightly and fairly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA Cases that even in the adjudication proceedings the petitioner has been exonerated from the liability of alleged contravention of the provisions of FERA, committed by the first accused-Company. It is also pertinent to note that the proceedings of the Additional Director, Income Tax viz. , Adjudicating Officer of its order dated 25.06.2004 categorically held that the petitioner has resigned from the Board of Directors, August 2000 itself. 10. The decisions cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for FERA Cases in the considered view of this Court are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case those decisions mainly highlight that a prosecution under FERA, Court shall presume mental state and there is no need to prove mens rea in view of the availability of legal presumption. But in the instant case such questions not at all arises in view of the admitted fact that it is not at all stated by the complainant that the petitioner was in charge and responsible for the business of the Company and there is absolutely no material available on record to show that the petitioner played any role in respect of the alleged offences of the provisions under FERA. It is also pertinent to note that even in the adjudication proceedings the Additional Director of Income Tax viz., Adjudicating Officer has rightly exonerated the petitioner herein mainly on the ground that the petitioner has resigned from the Director of the Company as early as in the month of August 2000 itself. Therefore in the absence of any specific allegation to the effect that the petitioner is also responsible and in charge for the business affairs of the Company, the petitioner could not be vicariously held liable for the alleged offence committed by the first accused-Company. 11. The Honourable Apex Court also in a catena of decisions held that a person cannot be vicariously held liable for any offence said to have been committed by a Company or a firm in the absence of specific allegation to the effect that such person was responsible and in charge of the business of the Company. 12. 11. The Honourable Apex Court also in a catena of decisions held that a person cannot be vicariously held liable for any offence said to have been committed by a Company or a firm in the absence of specific allegation to the effect that such person was responsible and in charge of the business of the Company. 12. Therefore in view of the above said facts and considering the position of law, allowing the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to clear case of abuse of Court and as such the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.409 of 2002 pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economical Offences (I/II), Egmore, Chennai in so far as the offences against the petitioner is quashed. Accordingly the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is quashed. 13. Consequently the Crl.M.P. 6264 of 2003 is closed.