Case Details: Nil Kamal Ghosh … Continue reading “Trial Court can’t Debar Officer of Directorate of Enforcement from Prosecuting on Behalf of ED: HC”
The post Trial Court can’t Debar Officer of Directorate of Enforcement from Prosecuting on Behalf of ED: HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
Case Details: Nil Kamal Ghosh v. Dipak Commercial Shrijit International – [2023] 150 taxmann.com 126 (HC-Calcutta)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
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).
The post Trial Court can’t Debar Officer of Directorate of Enforcement from Prosecuting on Behalf of ED: HC appeared first on Taxmann Blog.
News Archives – Taxmann Blog Read More