L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

(1) THE petitioner is being prosecuted in C.C. No. 153 of 2002 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic offences, at Hyderabad, for certain offences under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short the ). He filed Crl.M.P. No. 2606 of 2002 under Section 245, Cr.P.C. to discharge him.

(2) THE case as pleaded by the petitioner before the trial Court was as under:- on the basis of certain information said to have been received by them, the Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, have initiated enquiry under Section 51 of the. The enquiry under Section 51 is quasi-judicial in nature and on recording a finding, the adjudicating Officer is empowered to impose the penalty provided for under Section 50 of the. Obviously with a view to save the proceedings from limitation stipulated under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), they have initiated prosecution under Section 56 of the. Further, it was not competent for the Enforcement Directorate to launch prosecution unless the proceedings under Section 51 of thehave reached to finality. Submissions were also made touching on the merits of the matter with reference to certain statements said to have been recorded by the petitioner and certain other persons.

(3) THE trial Court, through its order dated 5-11-2002, rejected the application.

(4) SRI K. V. Simhadri, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution contemplated under Section 56 of thecan take place if only an adverse finding is recorded by the adjudicating officer in the proceedings under Section 51 of the. He submits that no crime or offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner unless the proceedings under Section 51 have culminated in a finding adverse to him. He relied upon certain judgments of the Supreme Court, Bombay and Gujarat High Courts in support of his contentions.

(5) SRI T. Suryakaran Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government, submits that the very language of Section 56 of theindicates that the proceedings for prosecution are in addition to and independent of those under Section 51. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jayappan v. S.K. Perumal, 1984 Suppl (2) SCC 724.

(6) THE application before the trial Court was for discharge under Section 245, Cr.P.C. The circumstances, under which the trial Court can discharge an accused under Section 245, Cr.P.C. are very limited. It is only when the trial Court, upon taking all the evidence referred to in Section 244, and for reasons to be recorded, finds that no case against the accused has been made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant his conviction, that it can discharge the accused. In the present case, the evidence is yet to be recorded. Further, it is not the case of the petitioner that even if all the contents of the complaint together with the supporting material are taken into account on their face value, no case is made out. Therefore, the facts pleaded by the petitioner do not fit into the circumstances provided for under Section 245 (2), Cr. P. C.

(7) ANOTHER contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that where adjudicatory proceedings are initiated before an adjudicating authority, the prosecution can be launched only after the termination of adjudicatory proceedings depending on the outcome. Such a general proposition is too difficult to be accepted. There may be certain statutes, which provide for prosecution of an offender, if it is found during the course of quasi-judicial or administrative enquiry that certain violations have taken place.

(8) HOWEVER, under the, the prosecution launched against an alleged offender is different from and in addition to, the proceedings initiated before an adjudicating officer under Section 51. The prosecution is provided for under Section 56 of the. The same reads as under :"56. OFFENCES AND PROSECUTIONS:- (1) Without prejudice to any award of penalty by the adjudicating officer under this Act, if any person contravenes any of the provisions of this Act (other than Section 13, Clause (a), sub-section (1) of Section 18, Section 18-A, clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 19, sub-section (2) of Section 44 and Sections 57 and 58), or of any rule, direction or order made there under, he shall, upon conviction by a Court, be punishable. " (remaining portion of the Section is not necessary. Hence omitted.) therefore, under the Scheme of the, the prosecution launched against an alleged offender is independent of the proceedings initiated or pending before the adjudicating officer under Section 51 of the. With reference to similar provisions, the Supreme Court took the view that pendency of the adjudication proceedings cannot be bar for institution of criminal proceedings.

(9) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Lakme Limited v. State of Gujarat, (2001) 132 ELT 20. It needs to be noted that the case before the Gujarat High Court was the one in the provisions of Central Excise Act, 1944. The prosecution under the provisions of the said Act was dependent on the outcome of the departmental adjudication. The same is not the case here.

(10) HE has also referred to certain interim orders passed by the Supreme Court in SLPs filed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in ANZ Grindlays Bank (1999 Cri LJ 2970 : 2000 CLC 122 ). Several issues were involved in the case before the Bombay High Court, which in turn, were taken to the Supreme Court. The permissibility of the proceeding with the prosecution even while adjudicatory proceedings are pending was one of the contentions. In the present case, the petitioner wanted an absolute discharge on the sole ground of pendency of adjudicatory proceedings. That was not even remotely the question before the Supreme Court.

(11) VIEWED from any angle, the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The trial Court had discussed the matter with reference to the relevant principles of law in its proper perspective. It has considered all the legal and factual aspects of the matter and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. The Cr. R. C. is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.