Sanchayita Lahkar

The Madras High Court has dismissed a set of criminal revision petitions challenging the conviction and sentence imposed under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, and other penal provisions. The case was heard by a Single Bench of  Justice P. Velmurugan, who recorded that "this Court does not find any patent error or illegality or infirmity in the judgments of the Courts below. There is no merit in the revisions."

The court upheld the concurrent findings of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, and the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, confirming the conviction and sentence against the petitioners. However, the court granted a 30-day period for the accused to file an appeal, stating that "in lieu of Ramzan, 30 days' time is granted for the accused to file an appeal, from today. After expiry of 30 days, if the petitioners could not obtain any fruitful order in their favour in the appeal, the trial Court is directed to secure the accused to serve remaining period of imprisonment, if any."

Also Read: 'Even Person Accused Of Heinous Crimes Entitled To Basic Protection Of Law' : Supreme Court

The criminal revisions arose from a case registered in R.C.No.53A/2001 by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against members of Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK). The case involved allegations that from December 15, 1997, to June 20, 2000, the accused received foreign contributions amounting to ₹1,54,88,508.07 in violation of Sections 6 and 11 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, without obtaining prior approval from the Government of India or the Reserve Bank of India.

The accused, comprising the State President, General Secretary, and other office-bearers of TMMK, were alleged to have opened an account in the name of Coimbatore Muslim Relief Fund (CMRF) at Bank of India, Sowcarpet, Chennai, to receive and utilize the funds without registering the association under the Act. The prosecution contended that the accused continued receiving foreign contributions even after an inquiry by the Government of Tamil Nadu flagged violations of the law.

The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, convicted the accused on September 30, 2011, under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 4(1)(e), 6, and 11 of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976. The court sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one to two years each, along with fines. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the VI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai, in Criminal Appeals No. 217 & 218 of 2011, which were dismissed on June 16, 2017. The petitioners then approached the High Court through criminal revisions.

The court examined the allegations of conspiracy and unauthorized receipt of foreign contributions. It recorded that "A1 to A5 entered into a criminal conspiracy to do illegal acts and formed an Association viz. TNMMK to accept the foreign contributions without registering the Association with the Government of India and without obtaining prior permission from the Government of India."

It further noted that "between 15.12.1997 to 20.06.2000, CMRF received foreign contributions of ₹1,54,88,508.07 from foreign sources and the same were deposited in the account of CMRF without the registration or prior permission from Government of India and Reserve Bank of India as required under Section 6 and 11 of the Act."

The court addressed the defense argument that the contributions were received from Indian Muslims living abroad, stating that "a careful perusal of the documents and evidence of P.W.9 proves that CMRF not only received contributions from Indian Muslims but also from individuals and associations in India as well as from South Africa, Dubai, Singapore, Hong Kong, and UAE."

The court also examined the argument that TMMK was not a political party, observing that "it is not the defence of the accused either before the trial Court or before the appellate Court that TMMK is not a political party. Now before this Court, in the revisions, the accused have taken a different stand that TMMK is not a political party."

The prosecution’s case was further supported by evidence including seizure of account ledgers from TMMK premises, as confirmed by prosecution witnesses. The court recorded that "evidence of P.W.8, Exs.P21 to P23, P12 and P13 proved the fact that CBI officials visited the premises of TMMK and conducted inspection and collected documents relating to CMRF, which reveal that CMRF received foreign contribution under the care of TMMK."

On the issue of sanction for prosecution under Section 27 of the Act, the court referred to the sanction order (Ex.P9) and recorded that "P.W.6, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, after perusing FIR and statement of witnesses, by applying his mind, has accorded sanction." The court cited Vijay Rajmohan v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2023) 1 SCC 329, which held that independent application of mind is sufficient to validate a sanction order.

The court recorded that "once the prosecution has charged the accused for the offence under the provisions of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976, 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."

Also Read: Orissa High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Teacher in Juvenile Justice Act Case: "No Evidence Linking Disciplinary Action to Student’s Death"

The court dismissed all the criminal revisions while granting a temporary reprieve for filing an appeal. It stated:

"Hence, all the criminal revisions shall stand dismissed. However, in lieu of Ramzan, 30 days' time is granted for the accused to file an appeal, from today. After expiry of 30 days, if the petitioners could not obtain any fruitful order in their favour in the appeal, the trial Court is directed to secure the accused to serve remaining period of imprisonment, if any."

Advocates Representing the parties:

For the Petitioners:

• P.V. Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr. Rahul M. Shankhar

• Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Counsel for Mr. S.S. Ashok Kumar

• J. Sivanandaraj, Senior Counsel for Mr. Akhil Ahmed Akbar Ali

For the Respondent (CBI):

• K. Sinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

Case Title: S. Hyder Ali & Ors. v. The Inspector of Police, CBI
Case Number: Crl.R.C.Nos.832, 833, and 836 of 2017
Bench: Justice P. Velmurugan

[Read/Download order]