Revisional Court’s Jurisdiction U/S 376 CrPC Very Limited: Madras High Court Refuses To Interfere With Conviction Of TMMK Members In Foreign Funds Case

The Madras High Court has refused to interfere with the conviction of members of the Tamilnadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK) who were accused of accepting foreign contributions without registering the Association with the Indian Government and without prior permission.

The Court was deciding Criminal Revisions filed by the accused persons against the concurrent Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, being confirmed by the Additional City Civil Judge.

A Single Bench of Justice P. Velmurugan reiterated, “It is settled proposition of law that this Court being a Revisional Court, cannot interfere with the judgment of the Courts below, unless there exist perversity or illegality. The jurisdiction of the Revisional Court under Section 376 is very limited and it can only examine the legality, proprietary and correctness of the order passed by the Courts below.”

The Bench observed that once the prosecution has charged the accused for the offence under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 (FCRA), and established through oral and documentary evidence, it is for the accused to prove that they received foreign contributions only from Indian Muslims and spent the same for the welfare of the victims, which was not done by the accused.

Senior Advocates P.V. Balasubramanian, Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, and J. Sivanandaraj appeared for the Petitioners while Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) K. Sinivasan appeared for the Respondents.

Factual Background

The Police had registered a case against the Petitioners i.e., the State President, General Secretary, State Deputy President, and the members of TMMK, stating that from 1997-2000, the accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy at Chennai to allegedly commit illegal acts by forming an Association to accept the foreign contributions without registering the same with the Government of India and without obtaining prior permission for the same. In pursuance of the conspiracy, a Bank Account was opened in the name and style of Coimbatore Muslim Relief Fund (CMRF). It was alleged that the said CMRF received foreign contributions of Rs. 1,54,88,508.07 from foreign sources and the same were deposited in the account of CMRF maintained at the Bank of India, without the registration of prior permission from the Government of India and Reserve Bank of India (RBI) as required under Section 6 and 11 of FCRA.

It was further alleged that even after the inquiry conducted by the Tamil Nadu Government, the accused did not stop the receipt of the foreign contributions, did not even take any steps to get permission from the Government of India, did not register the Association, and thereby violated the provisions of Section 22 of FCRA. The Magistrate found the accused persons guilty and convicted them for the offence under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 4(1)(e), 23, 6, and 11 of the FCRA. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. This was challenged before the Additional Judge and their conviction was confirmed. Hence, the accused persons approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “The trial Court based on the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that prosecution has proved its case and the accused violated the provisions of the Act and hence convicted the accused. The appellate Court also re-appreciated the entire evidence and confirmed the conviction recorded by the trial Court.”

The Court further noted that the Revisionsal Court, especially while dealing with Revision against concurrent findings of the lower Courts, should exercise its jurisdiction, where the decisions under the challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the findings recorded are based on no material evidence, and the judicial discretion has been exercised arbitrarily or perversely, however, it also requires justice to be done.

“The decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the respective petitioners are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. The decisions referred to by the learned Special Public Prosecutor are applicable to case on hand”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all the Criminal Revisions and refused to interfere with the conviction.

Cause Title- S. Hyder Ali v. The Inspector of Police (Case Number: Crl.R.C.Nos.832, 833 and 836 of 2017)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocates P.V. Balasubramanian, Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, J. Sivanandaraj, Advocates Rahul M. Shankhar, S.S. Ashok Kumar, and Akhil Ahmed Akbar Ali.

Respondents: SPP K. Sinivasan

Click here to read/download the Order