C.B.I. v. Pratap Chandra Reddy

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre
Indu Malhotra
Judgment Date: 2018-12-11
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of. The Court held that the issue of FCRA applicability could be properly decided only after the prosecution evidence is adduced and the material is placed on record. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the matter and dispose of it within one year from the date of the order, without being influenced by the High Court’s observations. The matter is left to be raised again at the merits stage, if necessary.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

C.B.I.

Respondents

Pratap Chandra Reddy

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Rajiv Nanda
• Ms. Suhasini Sen

Counsels for Respondents

• Sidharth Luthra
• Ashok Arora
• Dr. Lalit Bhasin
• Ms. Nina Gupta
• Dhawal Jain
• Ms. Palak Chadha
• P.V. Yogeswaran

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Supreme Court appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging the Delhi High Court’s order in Criminal Revision Petition No.115 of 1999, which had allowed the respondent’s revision and addressed the applicability of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA) to the case. The matter concerns offences allegedly committed by the respondent under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and FCRA, with the trial currently pending before the Court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, in a case titled CBI v. Nemi Chand Jain and others. The Court’s consideration was limited to whether the provisions of the FCRA should be invoked in this case at this stage. The judges noted that determining FCRA applicability requires evidence and material to be adduced by the prosecution and placed on record against the appellant; hence, it would be inappropriate to decide this issue at the interlocutory stage. The Court directed that the Trial Court proceed with the matter and dispose of it in accordance with law within one year, without being influenced by observations of the High Court in the impugned order. The appeal is disposed of, with the court refraining from making findings on merits at this stage and leaving the plea to be raised after evidence is adduced. The decision emphasizes deciding substantive statutory questions on the basis of trial evidence rather than in pre-trial proceedings.

Provisions of Law Cited

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976Indian Penal Code, 1860

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Sub judice
In accordance with law

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contended that the applicability of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA) to the case at hand should be considered and tested in the ongoing proceedings. They urged that the question of whether FCRA provisions are applicable needs to be resolved in the light of record evidence and the prosecutorial material, rather than deferred to a post-evidence stage. The/appellant highlighted that the trial has been pending for a long time and that a premature determination could prejudice the proper adjudication of charges under IPC and FCRA.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents filed written submissions and argued that the question of FCRA applicability should not be decided at the present stage in these proceedings. They stressed that the matter is sub judice and pending before the trial court, and the appropriate approach is to await prosecution evidence on merit before determining applicability. They urged the High Court’s observations be treated as guidance rather than a binding ruling on the merits, with the trial court directed to proceed in accordance with law within a reasonable timeframe.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.[2018] 14 S.C.R. 924 A ## C.B.I. v. ## PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY ## B (Ciminal Appeal No. 601 of 2009) DECEMBER 11, 2018 ## **[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]** _Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 – Applicability of – Held: In the instant case, the matter was pending in the trial Court in relation to certain offences alleged to have been committed_ C _by the respondent, which were punishable under the Penal Code, 1860 and FCRA – Insofar as applicability of the provisions of the FCRA were concerned, the same could be decided properly only after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the material is brought on record by means of evidence against the appellant in the case – It is not appropriate to examine the issue at this stage in_ D _these proceedings – The parties can raise this plea of applicability of FCRA only after the prosecution adduces the evidence on merits – Trial Court to records its findings at that stage in accordance with law – Penal Code, 1860._ ## CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal E No. 601 of 2009. From the final Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2006 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.115 of 1999. Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Suhasini Sen (for Arvind Kumar Sharma), Advs. F for the Appellant. Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ashok Arora, Dr. Lalit Bhasin, Ms. Nina Gupta, Dhawal Jain, Ms. Palak Chadha, P.V. Yogeswaran, Advs. for the Respondent. ## G H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## **ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.** 1. This appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 04.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition No.115 of 1999 whereby the High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent herein. 924 925 ## C.B.I. v. PRATAP CHANDRA REDDY [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 2. By order dated 26.03.2007, this Court issued notice limited to A the question on the correctness of the High Court’s order so far as it relates to the applicability of Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “FCRA”). 3. We heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the written submissions filed by the respondent. B 4. It is not in dispute that the matter is _sub judice_ and pending in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi in a case titled **CBI vs. Nemi Chand Jain and others** in relation to certain offences alleged to have been committed by the respondent, which are punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and FCRA. C 5. In our view, the issue with regard to the applicability of the provisions of the FCRA to the case at hand can be decided more properly only after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution and the material, if any, is brought on record by means of evidence against the appellant in the case. D 6. At the initial stage of the proceedings in this case, it does not appear appropriate or possible to probe this issue and decide it on merits one way or the other for want of adequate material. It is for this reason, we decline to examine the issue at this stage in these proceedings and leave the parties to raise this plea only after the prosecution adduces the evidence on merits. The Trial Court will then record its finding at that stage in accordance with law while disposing of the case. E 7. Since the trial is pending for quite a long time, we direct the concerned Magistrate to proceed with the matter and dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date F of this order without being influenced by any of the observations of the High Court made in the impugned order and in this order. In fact, we refrain ourselves from recording any finding on various submissions urged by the learned counsel for the respondent in his written submissions in the light of what we have observed _supra_ . G 8. With these observations, the appeal stands disposed of. H Ankit Gyan Appeal disposed of.