Trial Court can’t Debar Officer of Directorate of Enforcement from Prosecuting on Behalf of ED: HC
- Blog|News|FEMA & Banking|
- 2 Min Read
- By Taxmann
- |
- Last Updated on 23 May, 2023
Latest from Taxmann
Case Details: Nil Kamal Ghosh v. Dipak Commercial Shrijit International - [2023] 150 taxmann.com 126 (HC-Calcutta)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
-
- Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
-
Ms Debjani Ray for the Appellant.
Facts of the Case
In the instant case, the appellant was an officer of the Directorate of Enforcement. The Trial Court by the impugned order upheld that the provisions under section 61(2)(ii) of the FERA were not complied with by the appellant. Therefore, the cognizance of the offence taken by him under section 57 in adjudication proceedings was bad in law.
On appeal, the appellant submitted that on the basis of evidence in the Trial Court and documents relied on, the locus standi of the appellant was proved well beyond any doubt. As a result, the appellant claimed that he was entitled to proceed in the said case in accordance with the law.
It was discovered that there was a certificate/declaration issued by the Deputy Directorate of Enforcement, to authorize the Enforcement Officer to represent the Director of Enforcement in this case before the Trial Court.
It was also noted that there was a Notification No. SO 715 (E) dated 24-9-1993 published in the Official Gazette, declaring the category of officers who would be eligible to represent the Enforcement Directorate in a Court of law.
High Court Held
The High Court observed that the authorization of the appellant and Notification dated 24-9-1993 proved that the appellant was a competent officer under the law to institute prosecution on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate.
The High Court held that the Trial Court had committed a gross error by not considering the factual and legal aspects. Therefore, the impugned judgment of the Trial Court suffered for non-application of mind and wrong appreciation of fact situation as well as settled provisions of law. Hence, the same was liable to be set aside.
List of Cases Referred to
-
- Provident Fund Inspector v. Jhumarlal Swarooplal 1991 SCC Online Raj 236 (para 13).
Disclaimer: The content/information published on the website is only for general information of the user and shall not be construed as legal advice. While the Taxmann has exercised reasonable efforts to ensure the veracity of information/content published, Taxmann shall be under no liability in any manner whatsoever for incorrect information, if any.
Taxmann Publications has a dedicated in-house Research & Editorial Team. This team consists of a team of Chartered Accountants, Company Secretaries, and Lawyers. This team works under the guidance and supervision of editor-in-chief Mr Rakesh Bhargava.
The Research and Editorial Team is responsible for developing reliable and accurate content for the readers. The team follows the six-sigma approach to achieve the benchmark of zero error in its publications and research platforms. The team ensures that the following publication guidelines are thoroughly followed while developing the content:
- The statutory material is obtained only from the authorized and reliable sources
- All the latest developments in the judicial and legislative fields are covered
- Prepare the analytical write-ups on current, controversial, and important issues to help the readers to understand the concept and its implications
- Every content published by Taxmann is complete, accurate and lucid
- All evidence-based statements are supported with proper reference to Section, Circular No., Notification No. or citations
- The golden rules of grammar, style and consistency are thoroughly followed
- Font and size that’s easy to read and remain consistent across all imprint and digital publications are applied
Sign Up
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
Latest Books
Everything on Tax and Corporate Laws of India
To subscribe to our weekly newsletter please log in/register on Taxmann.com
