JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.to call for the records in E.O.C.C.No.461 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.-II), Egmore, Chennai and quash the same.) 1. This petition has been filed to quash the complaint in E.O.C.C.No.461 of 2002 for the offences under Section 7(1), 7(2)(v), 7(4) read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and Sections 8(1), 48, 49 & 68(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Clauses 11,12,23,24,25 & 27 of the FLM Memorandum of Instructions issued under Section 73(3) of the said Act, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.-II), Egmore, Chennai.. 2. The crux of the complaint is that the 1st Accused namely M/s. Nandhini Paryach Overseas Services Pvt. Ltd., is the holder of Full Fledged Money Changer's Licence valid till 27.10.1998 with certain attendant conditions from the RBI has been misusing the said RBI Licence by selling/transferring unauthorisedly the foreign exchange Traveller Cheque Stocks received from Mashreq Bank, Dubai. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.3,68,000/- (equivalent to US $ 1,00,000/-) given by the 4th Accused Shri Manimaran, Director of A1 Company, at Dubai as security deposit. The said security deposit with Mashrequ Bank was blocked on 27.01.1998. Accused Nos.2, 3 were also Directors of the 1st Accused Company. Hence, complaint was filed. 3. According to the complainant there were violations in the Reserve Bank regulations. Without any valid licence the company has issued a Travellers Cheque to the Indian Company. Therefore, the prosecution has been launched, which was taken on file in E.O.C.C.No.461 of 2002 with the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, for the offences under Sections 7(1), 7(2)(v), 7(4) read with Sections 6(4), 6(5) and Sections 8(1), 48, 49 & 68(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 read with Clauses 11,12,23,24,25 & 27 of the FLM Memorandum of Instructions issued under Section 73(3) of the said Act. 4. Counter has been filed by the Respondent Department in which it is stated that the adjudication proceedings is different from a criminal case. As per Section 71 of FERA, 1973, the burden of proof is upon the accused that the travellers cheque/foreign exchange was obtained after requisite permission. 5. 4. Counter has been filed by the Respondent Department in which it is stated that the adjudication proceedings is different from a criminal case. As per Section 71 of FERA, 1973, the burden of proof is upon the accused that the travellers cheque/foreign exchange was obtained after requisite permission. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that for same violations, show cause notice was issued by the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax and after thorough enquiry, on merits, adjudication proceedings have been dropped. Therefore, for the similar allegation the prosecution is not maintainable. In support of his contention he relied upon the following Judgments of the Honourable Apex Court: 1. Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Another [Crl.A.No.575 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.5422 of 2015) dated 08.09.2020 Supreme Court of India] 2. J. Sekar @ Sekar Reddy vs. Directorate of Enforcement [Crl.A.No.738 of 2022 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.8305 of 2021) dated 05.05.2022] and submitted that once the adjudication proceedings were concluded on merits, for the same set of allegation seeking permission for continuance of prosecution is in abuse of the process of law. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent is also placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Others [ (2011) 3 SCC 581 ] wherein the majority view it is held that when the finding by the Adjudication Authorities indicate that there is no contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, it would be unjust and an abuse of the process of the court to permit the Enforcement Directorate to continue with the criminal proceedings. 7. It is not disputed by the Respondent that the Adjudication proceedings have been initiated for the same violations for transferring the travellers cheque without permission and violation of the FERA Act and Rules. Adjudicating Authority has found that only the 4th Respondent has acted on behalf of the company which was the currency of Reserve Bank of India licence and no formal permission from Reserve Bank of India or any other authority for such transactions were required and held that only for few months they have carried out the business and surrendered their licence to the Reserve Bank of India and ultimately, after considering various documents dropped the proceedings in a similar set of facts. 8. 8. The judgment in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari's case (supra), the Honourable Apex Court has held that since the detailed adjudication order has been passed, the chances of conviction in a criminal trial involving the same facts appear to be bleak and set aside the criminal prosecution. 9. In J.Sekar @ Sekar Reddy's case (supra) also the Honourable Supreme Couret has quashed the prosecution, held that the chance to prove the allegations are very bleak in a criminal prosecution. 10. Further, the petitioner herein is 2nd Accused as shown in the complaint. The very complaint itself except alleging that the Accused No.2,3 and 4 are the Directors of the company, no allegations whatsoever made in the entire complaint as to the role of the petitioner in the affairs of the company. 11. Referring to the judgment in Radheshyam Kejriwal vs. State of West Bengal and Another, [ (2011) 3 SCC 581 ], the Apex Court in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI & Another [Crl.A.No.575 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(Crl.)No.5422 of 2015) dated 08.09.2020 Supreme Court of India] has held as follows:- “31. It is trite that the standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is higher than that required before the adjudicating authority and in case the accused is exonerated before the adjudicating authority whether his prosecution on the same set of facts can be allowed or not is the precise question which falls for determination in this case.” After referring to various judgments, this Court then culled out the ratio of those decisions in paragraph 38 as follows:- “38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows: (i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other; (iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution; (v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; (vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and (vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases.” It finally concluded: “39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the court.” From our point of view, para 38(vii) is important and if the High Court had bothered to apply this parameter, then on a reading of the CVC report on the same facts, the appellant should have been exonerated.” 12. Section 68 of the FERA Act makes it very clear that prosecuting of a company, every person who at the time of the contravention was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In this case no averment was made against this petitioner committed a contravention. Even in the adjudication proceedings it is clearly held that only 4th accused issued the cheque. In such a view of the matter, complaint against the present petitioner is certainly abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. 13. In view of the above, the Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Connected M.Ps are closed.