Judgment :- 1. This revision challenges the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, passed in M.P. No. 13 of 1998 in C.C.No.254 of 1997 on 24.8.2010. In C.C.No. 254 of 1997, the petitioner faces prosecution for offences under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1973 (FERA) punishable under Section 56(1)(i) thereof. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that a search was conducted by the income tax authorities at the residence of one A.N. Dyaneswaran on 20.1.1996. During the same, certain foreign currencies were seized. The petitioner came to the premises of such person during the course of the search. He was found to be in possession of foreign currencies viz, U.S.$ 5014 stored in his briefcase. The same were seized. The prosecution charges that the petitioner had 'otherwise acquired' US dollars 5014 from persons other than authorised dealers of foreign exchange without having any previous general or special exemption from the RBI for entering into such transactions and thereby violated Section 8(1) FERA. 3. In the petition for discharge, it had been contended that the real owner of the foreign currencies had made a claim before the income tax department for return thereof and moved further by way of writ proceedings. The complaint had been filed suppressing the pendency of such proceedings. The statements of the petitioner and the owner and her claim for return of the moneys would show that the petitioner had received the said foreign currencies from Seethalakshmi Nagaraj for the purpose of depositing the same into the NRE account of his brother-in-law, one Vijayaraghavan. He could at best be said to be a carrier of the currencies. He had no proprietary interest therein and could not be said to have 'acquired' the foreign currencies. The prosecution contended that the introduction of Seethalakshmi Nagaraj as the owner of the currencies was only a ruse to escape prosecution. Though such person had made a claim, her statement made before the enforcement authorities contained several inconsistencies and had been made as an afterthought towards bailing out the petitioner. The petitioners who is a chartered accountant was found in possession of foreign currencies of value beyond the permissible limit of RS 15,000. Though such person had made a claim, her statement made before the enforcement authorities contained several inconsistencies and had been made as an afterthought towards bailing out the petitioner. The petitioners who is a chartered accountant was found in possession of foreign currencies of value beyond the permissible limit of RS 15,000. Foreign currencies could be deposited into an NRE account by a NRE account holder out of his own legally earned monies and borrowing from a person other than an authorised dealer was not permissible. The Court below dismissed the petition for discharge informing that a petition under section 245 Cr.P.C. would not lie after the evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C. stood recorded, that a prima facie case stood made out against the petitioner and the probative value of the material on record could not be gone into at the time of framing charges. 4. Heard Sri.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Dhandapani, Special Public Prospector. 5. Though we would inform that the Court below is wrong in stating that a petition seeking discharge was not maintainable after the recording of the evidence for the prosecution under section 244 Cr.P.C., we would not interfere with the order under challenge for the following reason: Even without going into the question of whether the petitioner has acquired foreign-exchange in violation of section 8(1) FERA 1973, the position accepted by the petitioner is that he was in possession of the foreign currencies towards depositing the same into the NRE account of his brother-in-law. It is his contention that he had received the said currencies from Seethalakshmi Nagaraj for such purpose and at her instance. According to the prosecution the petitioner in his statement under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Action 1973 (FERA) had admitted that he visited Seethalakshmi Nagaraj and requested for foreign exchange as he wanted to deposit the same into the NRE account of his brother in law as such person was in need of the same. Without going into the merits, even if it be accepted that the foreign exchange did belong to Seethalakshmi Nagaraj, the prosecution would still have a case of borrowing prohibited under section 8(1) FERA1973, if it establishes its contention in this regard. It would be for the petitioner to establish in the course of trial that he had received the foreign exchange from Seethalakshmi Nagaraj at her instance. It would be for the petitioner to establish in the course of trial that he had received the foreign exchange from Seethalakshmi Nagaraj at her instance. This is more so because section 71 FERA 1973 places the burden of proving lawful possession of foreign exchange in excess of value of rupees 15,000 upon him. The revision shall stand dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.