Judgment :- 1. The petitioners in Crl.R.C.Nos.572/2011 and 601/2011 are the accused in cases pending trial in E.O.C.C.No.251 of 1997 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O-1), Egmore, Chennai. They have moved petitions for discharge in Crl.M.P.Nos.2556/2010 and 10/1998 and the revisions are against the dismissal of such petitions under orders dated 24.08.2010 of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O-1), Egmore, Chennai. Crl.R.C.1070/2010: The petitioner is the sole accused in the case pending trial in E.O.C.C.No.253 of 1997 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O-1), Egmore, Chennai. He has sought discharge in M.P.No.12/1998 and upon dismissal under order dated 24.08.2010 of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O-1), Egmore, Chennai, he has preferred this revision. 2. A sum of Rs.1,36,50,000/- was allegedly received as gift by the Dr.Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust. One Nadadur Varadhan, an NRI, had taken loans on his NRE accounts and the proceeds were "gifted". The 2nd accused informed of being a chartered accountant by qualification and of being a Director of DoMore Tools Accessories, Madras, engaged in the manufacturing of machine tools and of being the first cousin of the said Nadadur Varadhan. He had deposited a total sum of Rs.41,16,529.40 during 1994-95 into the NRI account of Nadadur Varadhan by means of cheques drawn from his (2nd accused) savings bank account. He had further deposited into such NRI account a sum of Rs.54,67,534.25 during 1994-95 by means of cheques of his company DoMore Tools Accessories, Madras. A2 is also said to have paid a sum of Rs.4,22,000/- to the said Nadadur Varadhan as requested by him as also made payments totalling Rs.8,50,000/- to other persons on his instructions. 3. Prosecution informs that A1 is the power of attorney of the Dr.Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust, members of which only are other members of his family. Prosecution alleges that as quid pro quo for the alleged "gift" of Rs.1,36,50,000/-" a sum of Rs.1,45,59,195/- was paid by the 1st accused to Nadadur Varadhan through the 2nd accused. It accuses A1 of having contravened the provisions of Section 9 (1) (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the Act) by making various payments totalling Rs.1,45,59,195/- during 1994-95 to the 2nd accused on behalf of the said Nadadur Varadhan, a person resident outside India, without general or special exemption of the Reserve Bank of India. It accuses A1 of having contravened the provisions of Section 9 (1) (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as the Act) by making various payments totalling Rs.1,45,59,195/- during 1994-95 to the 2nd accused on behalf of the said Nadadur Varadhan, a person resident outside India, without general or special exemption of the Reserve Bank of India. The charge against the 2nd accused is that he, as a person resident in India and not being an authorised dealer in Foreign exchange has contravened Section 9 (1) (b) of the Act by receiving various payments totalling Rs.1,45,59,195/- during 1994-95 from the 1st accused on behalf of Nadadur Varadhan, a person resident outside India without general or special exemption of the Reserve Bank of India. 4. Before the trial court, both petitioners had contended that the assessment of the sums gifted to the Dr.Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust as the income of the 1st accused successfully had been challenged before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. In answering the challenge of the department to the findings of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in Tax Case (Appeal) No.150 of 2004, this court under orders dated 03.09.2007 held as follows: "......From the above it is clear that the Tribunal had given a factual finding and there is no direct involvement of the assessee in the case and the amounts have been assessed under the Income Tax Act. Also, the entire donation amounts have been accounted for in the books of the Trust. Further, there is no evidence available from the Department, to show that the assessee had repaid any money either to Sampath kumar or Varadhan. Hence the additions made in respect of amounts in the name of Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust had been correctly deleted by the Tribunal on the ground that the Trust is a separate juristic person and also the same is assessed under the Income-tax Act. The Income-tax Department have also made a separate assessment in the case of Dr. Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 for the entire amount of Rs.1.69 crores. Further some assessments are also pending before the Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, we are of the view that the deletions made by the Tribunal are in accordance with law." 5. According to the petitioners, the above findings were a binding precedent which had the effect of nullifying the prosecution case. Further some assessments are also pending before the Tribunal. In view of the above reasons, we are of the view that the deletions made by the Tribunal are in accordance with law." 5. According to the petitioners, the above findings were a binding precedent which had the effect of nullifying the prosecution case. They also contended that the non examination of the said Nadadur Varadhan was fatal to the prosecution. The Trial court informed that prosecution evidence u/s. 244 of Cr.P.C had been recorded and at such stage no petition for discharge would lie. Informing that at the stage of framing charges, it could not go into probative value of the material and that petitioners would have a chance to make out their defence in the trial, it dismissed the petitions. 6. Heard Mr. B. Kumar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Dhandapani, Special Public Prosecutor for Enforcement cases. 7. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st accused has been arrayed as such in his individual capacity and not as a trustee of the Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust. The trust is the recipient of the gifts. Therefore the question of 1st accused receiving funds from an NRI did not arise. The evidence available is that the Nadadur Varadhan wanted a loan in rupee terms on his NRE deposits. He was entitled to deposit the loan proceeds in any manner thought fit by him. He had chosen to gift the monies to the trust. Independently, the 2nd accused had credited monies to the account of the NRI Nadalur Varadhan. Two bank officials examined i.e officials representing the authorised Foreign exchange dealer, had informed that the manner in which the loans were taken on NRE deposits and were repaid was acceptable. 8. Section 73(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 informs as follows: (73.) Supplemental provisions (3) The Reserve Bank may give directions in regard to the making of payment and the doing of other acts by bankers, authorised dealers, money changers, stock brokers, or other persons, who are authorised by the Reserve bank to do anything in pursuance of this Act, in the course of their business, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of this Act and of any rules, directions or orders made thereunder." 9. Prosecution had not produced any direction issued under section 73(3) of the Act to support its contentions. In the absence thereof, the statements of bank officials who informed that only a normal practice had been adopted in the present case, put an end to the controversy. Learned Senior counsel informed that the transactions complained of were conducted through the Foreign Exchange dealer bank and in the event of any violation such dealer also would have been proceeded against. Learned Senior Counsel touched upon the decision of the Apex Court in P.S. Rajya Vs. State of Bihar, 1996(1) 9 SCC, which informs that the standard of proof required to establish guilt in a criminal case was far higher than that required in departmental proceedings. Apparently, intention of learned Senior Counsel is to impress this Court that there had not even been departmental proceedings in this case and therefore, much less would a criminal case stand attracted. 10. Mr.M.Dhandapani, Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners had successfully dragged on the proceedings from the year 1997 and referred this court to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex court in Santosh De and Another vs. Archna Guha and Others 1994 2 SCC 420 informing that the following observations therein aptly applied to this case. "(15.) The facts of this case impel us to say how easy it has become today to delay the trial of criminal cases. An accused so minded can stall the proceedings for decades together, if he has the means to do so. Any and every single interlocutory is challenged in the superior courts and the superior courts, we are pained to say, are falling prey to their stratagems. We expect the superior courts to resist all such attempts. Unless a grave illegality is committed, the superior courts should not interfere. They should allow the court which is seized of the matter to go on with it. There is always an appellate court to correct the errors. One should keep in mind the principle behind Section 465 Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction of a procedural provision cannot constitute a ground for interference by a superior court unless such irregularity or infraction has caused irreparable prejudice to the party and requires to be corrected at that stage itself. One should keep in mind the principle behind Section 465 Cr.P.C. Any and every irregularity or infraction of a procedural provision cannot constitute a ground for interference by a superior court unless such irregularity or infraction has caused irreparable prejudice to the party and requires to be corrected at that stage itself. Such frequent interference by superior courts at the interlocutory stages tends to defeat the ends of justice instead of serving those ends. It should not be that a man with enough means is able to keep the law at bay. That would mean the failure of the very system." 11. Submitting that the entire case of the prosecution was based on the statement of the petitioners as also documents and therefore they would have to face trial, learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Apex court in State of Maharashtra and Others vs Som Nath Thapa and Others, (1996) 4 SCC 659 wherein the law on the subject stood discussed as follows: “(27.) Let us note the three pairs of sections Shri Jethmalani has in mind. These are Sections 227 and 228 in so far as sessions trial is concerned; Sections 239 and 240 relatable to trial of warrant cases; and Sections 245(1) and (2) qua trial of summons case. They read as below : "227: Discharge - If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therein, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing. 228: Framing of Charge - (1) If, after such consideration and hearing as aforesaid, the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence which - (a) is not exclusively triable by the Court of Session, he may frame a charge against the accused and, by order, transfer the case for trial to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, and thereupon the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall try the offence in accordance with the procedure for trial of warrant-cases instituted on a police report; (b) is exclusively trial by the Court, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) Where the Judge frames any charge under Clause (b) of Sub-section (1), the charge shall be read and explained to the accused and the accused shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 239: When accused shall be discharged -If, upon considering the police report and the document sent with it under Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the accused, and record his reasons for so doing. 240: Framing of charge - (1) if, upon such consideration, examination, if any, and hearing the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try and which, in his opinion, could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. (2) The charge shall then be read and explained to the accused, and he shall be asked whether he pleads guilty of the offence charged or claims to be tried. 245: When accused shall be discharged -(1) If, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, the Magistrate considers, for reasons to be recorded, that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, the Magistrate shall discharge him. (2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to prevent a Magistrate from discharging the accused at any previous stage of the case if, for reasons to be recorded by such Magistrate, he considers the charge to be groundless. (28.) Before adverting to what was stated in Antulay's case, let the view expressed in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 :1977 SCC (Cri) 404: (1977) 3 SCR 113 be noted. Therein, Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three Judge Bench stated at page 119 that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. Therein, Chandrachud, J. (as he then was) speaking for a three Judge Bench stated at page 119 that at the stage of framing charge the Court has to apply its mind to the question whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As framing of charge affects a person's liberty substantially, need for proper consideration of material warranting such order was emphasised. (29.) What was stated in this regard in Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad's case, which was quoted with approval in paragraph 78 of State of West Bengal v. Mohd. Khalid ( 1995 1 SCC 684 ) is that what the Court has to see, while considering the question of framing the charge, is whether the material brought on record would reasonably connect the accused with the crime. No more is required to be inquired into. (30.) In Antulay's case, Bhagwati, CJ., opined, after noting the difference in the language of the three pairs of section, that despite the difference there is no scope for doubt that at the stage at which the Court is required to consider the question of framing of charge, the test of "prima facie" case has to be applied. According to Shri Jethmalani, a prima facie case can be said to have been made out when the evidence, unless rebutted, would make the accused liable to conviction. In our view, better and clearer statement of law would be that if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence, a court can justifiably say that a prima facie case against him exists, and so, frame charge against him for committing that offence". (31.) Let us note the meaning of the word "presume". In Black's Law Dictionary it has been defined to mean "to believe or accept upon probable evidence". (Emphasis ours). In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary it has been mentioned that in law "presume" means "to take as proved until evidence to the contrary is forthcoming", Stroud's Legal Dictionary has quoted in this context a certain judgment according to which "A presumption is a probable consequence drawn from facts (either certain, or proved by direct testimony) as to the truth of a fact alleged." (Emphasis supplied). In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyer the same quotation finds place at page 1007 of 1987 edition. In Law Lexicon by P. Ramanath Aiyer the same quotation finds place at page 1007 of 1987 edition. (32.) The aforesaid shows that if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the Court were to think that the accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.' 12. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that applying the above tests, a prima facie case stood made out in the instant case. Further, Section 72 of the Act required the court to make certain presumptions in respect of documents seized from the accused and u/s.71 thereof the burden lay upon the accused to establish that he had requisite permission in a case where he was prohibited from acting there without. 13. Though, we straight away would inform that the court below is in error in stating that no petition for discharge would lie after recording of evidence of the prosecution u/s. 244 Cr.P.C, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders under challenge for the following reasons: In dealing with a question of assessment under the Income Tax Act, this court inter alia had observed (from the portion earlier extracted) 'further there is no evidence from the department to show that the assessee had repaid any money to either Sampathkumar or Varadhan.' Presently we find the complaint informs as follows: “(11.) The accused 2 was questioned with reference to the various loans taken by Nadadur Varadhan against NRE Deposit and given to Dr. Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust of which A.N.Dyaneswaran, Accused 1 is an important functionary. He replied that Sri Nadadur Varadhan took loans and the amounts paid to the said Trust were as follows: Rs.30,00,000.00:April 1994 Rs.31,50,000.00:May 1994 Rs.11,99,000.00:October, 1994 Rs. 3,01,000.00:December, 1994 Rs.30,00,000.00:August, 1995 Rs.30,00,000.00:December, 1995 (12.) At this juncture the Accused 2 was shown copies of page numbers 1,39,40,41,42 & 52 marked PV/LS/4, seized by the Income Tax. He replied that Sri Nadadur Varadhan took loans and the amounts paid to the said Trust were as follows: Rs.30,00,000.00:April 1994 Rs.31,50,000.00:May 1994 Rs.11,99,000.00:October, 1994 Rs. 3,01,000.00:December, 1994 Rs.30,00,000.00:August, 1995 Rs.30,00,000.00:December, 1995 (12.) At this juncture the Accused 2 was shown copies of page numbers 1,39,40,41,42 & 52 marked PV/LS/4, seized by the Income Tax. Amongst them, sheets 1,39,41,42,&52 contain accounts of transactions sent by him to Shri Nadadur Varadhan USA. After perusing and endorsing those documents with his signature he stated that he had nothing more to answer than what he had stated before and also in his affidavit dated 02.05.96 sent by post. Page 40 of the documents PV/Ls/4 is a copy of letter written by the Accused to Shri Nadadur Varadhan, USA in which he had interalia written as follows:" My friend helped us by giving Rs.16,94,047.50 so that you give him a donation of Rs.15,00,000/- for this transaction." When he was questioned, the accused 2 stated that he had nothing more to answer except what he has already stated and what contained in his affidavit dated 12.05.96. In Page No.40, he has also written as follows: "Again at your request when your friend in Hyderabad failed you, I requested my friend for Rs.16,49,047.50 so that you could send a donation in payment of Rs.15,00,000.00. He obliged me in late April. I deposited Rs.13,07,775.00 on 29.04.95 and 25.05.95. I deposited Rs.3,22,501.00 to close loan account and repatriated to Doha in the meanwhile, I urge you to immediately pay Rs.15 lakhs to Dr. Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust in Rupees to save me from embarrassment." When Accused 2 was questioned about the above contents at page 40 he stated that those have already been dealt with in his affidavit and he had nothing further to add. The accused 2 in his statement dated 05.02.96 given before the Income Tax Authorities, Madras, explained that friend referred to in Sheet No.40 PV/LS/4 denote A.N.Dyaneswaran, Accused 1. The Accused 2 was also questioned by the Income Tax as follows:- Question 27: "In sheet No.40 of the seized documents, No.PV/LS/4 dated 19.01.96, the friend referred by you is Mr.A.N.Dyaneswaran. Answer: "Yes" Question 28: The amount of Rs.16,49,047.50 paid on 29.04.95 and in May 1995 were given by Shri A.N.Dyaneswaran. What do you say? The Accused 2 was also questioned by the Income Tax as follows:- Question 27: "In sheet No.40 of the seized documents, No.PV/LS/4 dated 19.01.96, the friend referred by you is Mr.A.N.Dyaneswaran. Answer: "Yes" Question 28: The amount of Rs.16,49,047.50 paid on 29.04.95 and in May 1995 were given by Shri A.N.Dyaneswaran. What do you say? Answer: "Yes" I had already replied about the transaction in my answer to Question No.19" Question No.29: "In return fro this money Rs.16,49,047.50 Shri Varadhan has given a donation of Rs.15 lakhs to DNT Trust. Is it correct? Answer: Yes Question No.19 & 20 put by Income Tax and answered by Accused 2 Question No.19: Please explain me about the following statement of the above letter in the meanwhile I urge you to immediately pay Rs.15 lakhs to Dr. Dharmambal Namasivayam Trust in rupees to save me from embarrassment. I don't know how to face him if he demands payment of interest for the delay. Answer: As explained elsewhere to close certain loan account of Mr. Varadhan, help was sought from Mr. Dyaneswaran, Accused 1. At that point of time Mr. Varadhan informed that he is expecting substantial funds in return. I told Varadhan that I will request Mr. Dyaneswaran for financial help. But once he expected funds are realized he should as a gesture give him a donation otherwise it will become like a loan transaction with interest which is not that was expected. Therefore I suggested that not only the money that was advanced as an interim arrangement should be returned but also as a gesture make a donation which was well within his means. Question No.20: Please explain me the contents of Sheet No.41 of seized Document No.PV/LS/4 dated 19.01.96. Answer: It is a consolidation of all the four transactions of Mr. Therefore I suggested that not only the money that was advanced as an interim arrangement should be returned but also as a gesture make a donation which was well within his means. Question No.20: Please explain me the contents of Sheet No.41 of seized Document No.PV/LS/4 dated 19.01.96. Answer: It is a consolidation of all the four transactions of Mr. Varadhan with regard the money received from Mr.Varadhan paid by Mr.Varadhan Sheet No.52 seized by the Income Tax from Accused 2 reads as under: Total amount received Rs.32,98,100.00 Details for the Rs.30,00,000.00 above donation in terms of $ at the rate 95,328.095 31.50or 95,238.10 Premium @ Rs 2.502,38,095.25 per $ Service Charge 30,000.00 Interest cover 30,000.00 earned 2,98,095.00 Total cash received Rs.30,00,000.00 + 2,98,100.00 Deployment paid 4,22,000.00 Mr.Paul paid Varadha 20,000.00 (50,000-30,000) paid (Annexure-G0 1,00,000.00 5,42,000.00 Amount available to close the loan 27,56,600.00 (13.) Based on the above material, the Accused 2 was questioned on 15.05.96 and he was asked to state as to how much he received from A.N.Dyaneswaran, Accused-1, for the total donation of Rs.1,36,50,000.00, given by Nadadur Varadhan, U.S.A. Accused-2 denied all that was stated and stated that no one paid money to him for the said donations.” 14. Therefore, where the 2nd accused has admitted that the friend referred to in his interaction with his cousin Nadadur Varadhan is the first accused and there is material to indicate calculation of premium and service charges on sums allegedly donated, it cannot be contended that there is no prima facie case as would warrant trial. 15. Petitioners rely on the submissions of the two bank officials. Their questioning by the departmental officials itself indicates that the prosecution does not accept the contentions of such bank officials. The complaint informs of the communication of the Manager, Exchange Control Department, Reserve Bank of India, Madras, dated 15.11.96 that in terms of the provisions contained in para 13 B 9 of the Exchange Control Manual 1953, the transactions in the case were not in order, particularly in view of the fact that loans availed by the NRI was paid by local residents. Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd and others ( 1986 (1) SCC 264 ) to inform that Exchange Control Manual is in the nature of explanatory statement of guidelines and not directions u/s. 73 (3) of the Act. Learned Senior counsel has placed reliance on Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Escorts Ltd and others ( 1986 (1) SCC 264 ) to inform that Exchange Control Manual is in the nature of explanatory statement of guidelines and not directions u/s. 73 (3) of the Act. Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 reads as follows: "Restrictions on payments (9.) (1) Save as may be provided in and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall -(a) make any payment to or for the credit of any person resident outside India; (b) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India. Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, where any person in, or resident in, India receives any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India through any other person (including an authorised dealer) without a corresponding inward remittance from any place outside India, then, such person shall be deemed to have received such payment otherwise than through an authorised dealer; (c) draw, issue or negotiate any bill of exchange or promissory note or acknowledge any debt, so that a right (whether actual or contingent) to receive a payment is created or transferred in favour of any person resident outside India; (d) make any payment to, or for the credit of, any person by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India; (e) place any sum to the credit of any person resident outside India; (f) make any payment to, or for the credit of, any person or receive any payment for, or by order or on behalf of, any person as consideration for or in association with -(i) the receipt by any person of a payment or the acquisition by any person of property outside India, (ii) the creation or transfer in favour of any person of a right (whether actual or contingent) to receive payment or acquire property outside India; (g) draw, issue or negotiate any bill of exchange or promissory note, transfer any security or acknowledge any debt, so that a right (whether actual or contingent) to receive a payment is created or transferred in favour of any person as consideration for or in association with any matter referred to in clause (f). (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall render unlawful -(a) the making of any payment already authorised either with foreign exchange obtained from an authorised dealer or a money-changer under section 8 or with foreign exchange retained by a person in pursuance of an authorisation granted by the Reserve Bank; (b) the making of any payment with foreign exchange received by way of salary or payment for services not arising from any business in, or anything done while in, India. (3) Save as may be provided in, and in accordance with, any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section, which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the reserve Bank, no person shall remit or cause to be remitted any amount from any foreign country into India except in such a way that the remittance is received in India only through an authorised dealer. (4) Nothing in this section shall restrict the doing by any person of anything within the scope of any authorisation or exemption granted under this Act. (5) For the purposes of this section and section 19, "security" includes coupons or warrants representing dividends or interest and life or endowment insurance policies. 16. We are now concerned with the existence or otherwise of a prima facie case, which, as indicated herein above, we are of the view, exists. Such view is further reinforced by the fact that as against the claim of A2 that the monies deposited in favour of Nadadur Varadhan were his own, through his business and earnings of his company, the complaint informs as follows: (15.) Shri P. Easwaran was examined by the Chief Enforcement Officer, on 13.07.96, in which he denied that he had been working as a Manager for the Accused in respect of the alleged lease hold land of about 150 acres at Salem. He also stated that he did not know who is Sampath Kumar and when the photograph of Sampath kumar, Accused 2 was shown to him he again stated that he did not know about him. Shri P. Easwaran was again examined under section 40 on 27.1196 in which he reiterated that whatever he has already stated in his statement dated 13.07.96 was true and his letter dated 20.09.96 sent by him to the Enforcement Officer has to be ignored as the same was not reflecting the correct state of affairs. (20.) Shri V.T. Chandran of Domore Tools and Accessories Ltd., Madras was examined under section 40 on 17.03.97 by the Enforcement Officer. (20.) Shri V.T. Chandran of Domore Tools and Accessories Ltd., Madras was examined under section 40 on 17.03.97 by the Enforcement Officer. In his statement, he interalia stated that the joined as typist cum Clerk in 1981 and presently he is working as an Accountant and he has seen the Accused 2 in the company from 1981 and that apart from the Accused 2 as Director, the other Directors are Srinivasan and P.M.vijayaraghavan, NRI; that during the last one year Shri P.M. Vijayaraghavan has been looking after the company by giving directions from Dubai. He was show the xerox copies of pay-in-slips for the deposit of cash in the Current Account No.C&1939 of Domore Tools and Accessories Ltd., with State Bank of India, Anna Salai for the various deposit made. After going through the pay-in-slips he stated that all the pay-in-slips were filled up by him but he signed a few and he could not recollect who signed the others. He has however categorically stated that the said cash deposited did not belong to the company and it were given by the Accused 2 for depositing into the account of the company and he did not know the source. He was also shown the xerox copies of pay-in-slips for the various cash deposits made in the SB Account No.71053 of the Accused 2 with State Bank of India. After perusal he stated that he filled up and signed all the pay-in-slips and cash deposits were given by the Accused 2. He also admitted having purchased two drafts totaling Rs.13,00,000/-on 29.04.95 from State Bank of India, Thiruvanmiyur by the cash provided by the Accused 2. He further stated that after purchasing the drafts in the question he handed over the same to the Accused 2. He added that though he was the applicant he gave the name of Nadadur Varadhan as instructed by the Accused 2 and he put his signature in the said application for the purchase of the drafts. These two drafts totaling to Rs.13,00,000/-were also credited to the account of Nadadur Vardhan, NRI, with SBI, NRI Branch, Madras-2. 17. He added that though he was the applicant he gave the name of Nadadur Varadhan as instructed by the Accused 2 and he put his signature in the said application for the purchase of the drafts. These two drafts totaling to Rs.13,00,000/-were also credited to the account of Nadadur Vardhan, NRI, with SBI, NRI Branch, Madras-2. 17. The observation of the Division Bench of this court in Tax Case (Appeal) No.150/2004 to the effect that there was no evidence available from the Department, to show that the assessee had in fact repaid any money either to Sampathkumar or Varadhan will not come to the aid of the accused in the light of the above and given the nature of offences contemplated under Section 9 of the Act. 18. Petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1070 of 2010 faces prosecution for offences u/s. 9 (1) (a) and 9 (1) (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Court below rightly has informed that there is no question of dual prosecution involved and on the submissions made by the petitioner regarding the validity of the statements recorded it has held that such issue will be decided only at the time of trial. The court below has rightly informed that there is no overlapping between the case in E.O.C.C.No.251/1997 and 253/1997. In E.O.C.C.No.251/1997 the petitioner is accused of offence u/s. 9 (1) (b) whereas in E.O.C.C.No.253/1997 he is accused of offences u/s. 9 (1) (a) and 9 (1) (d). He stands accused of distinct offences in each of the cases. 19. All three revisions shall stand dismissed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.