Bombay High Court Dismisses Applicant's Challenge to Fugitive Economic Offender Proceedings — Procedural Direction to Split Hearing Not Interfered With. Mandatory Compliance with Section 4(2) and Section 10(2) of Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 Not Required at Initial Stage of Declaration.

Criminal application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order of the Special Judge in proceedings under the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018.

The applicant sought to quash the order dated 31 January 2019 passed by the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Criminal Misc. Application No. 997 of 2018.

The applicant contended that the Enforcement Directorate's application under Section 4 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 did not contain the list of all persons interested in the property as required by Section 4(2)(e) and Section 10(2) of the Act, and that the Special Judge failed to consider this mandatory requirement.

The Special Judge had passed an order on 31 January 2019 splitting the hearing into two parts: first to decide whether the applicant can be declared a fugitive economic offender, and then to deal with the property.

Whether the application under Section 4 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 must contain a list of all persons interested in the property as a mandatory requirement. Whether the Special Judge's order splitting the hearing into two parts is sustainable.

Applicant: The application filed by the Enforcement Directorate does not contain the list of all persons who have an interest in the property, violating Sections 4(2)(e) and 10(2) of the Act, which are mandatory. The Special Judge failed to consider this. Respondent No.2: The Special Judge's order is a procedural direction to split the hearing; no interference is warranted under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The requirement under Section 4(2)(e) and Section 10(2) of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 to list all persons interested in the property and issue notice is not mandatory at the initial stage of declaring a person as a fugitive economic offender; the Special Judge can split the hearing to first decide the declaration and then deal with the property.

By this application, the applicant has impugned the order dated 31st January 2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, below Exhibit 1 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 997 of 2018. He submits that since the application filed by the prosecuting agency does not contain the list of all persons who have an interest in the property, the said application does not meet the requirements of Section 4(2) and Section 10 of the said Act. He submits that the learned Special Judge vide the said order, has only thought it appropriate to split the hearing and decision of the application (Exhibit 1) preferred by the Enforcement Directorate) in two parts, i.e. to hear the application (Exhibit 1) first, on the issue whether the applicant can be declared as a fugitive economic offender and pass orders thereon, and thereafter, based on the outcome of the first order, take hearing on the issue whether the properties involved can be subjected to co

The Enforcement Directorate filed an application under Section 4 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 before the Special Judge, Greater Mumbai, seeking to declare the applicant a fugitive economic offender. The Special Judge passed an order on 31 January 2019 splitting the hearing into two parts. The applicant challenged this order by filing Criminal Application No. 1414 of 2019 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the Bombay High Court.

• Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018: 4(2)(e), 10(1), 10(2), 12(1), 12(2), 23(2)(a)
• Declaration of Fugitive Economic Offenders (Forms and Manner of Filing Application) Rules, 2018: 3(1)(viii)
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): 482