Madras High Court Declines To Interfere With Conviction And Sentence Of MLA In Case Involving Receipt Of Foreign Funds

Justice P Velmurugan, however, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) not to arrest Jawaharulla for a period of one month considering the holy month of Ramzan was ongoing and Jawaharulla, along with the other revision petitioners, was observing fast for Ramzan. The court made it clear that the agency would execute the order of the Magistrate Court after a period of one month if the petitioners had not obtained a stay on the sentence.

“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,” the court said.

In 2011, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court in Egmore had convicted Jawaharulla and others in a case filed by the CBI for allegedly accepting foreign contributions without following the law. The CBI alleged that during the period from 1997 to 2000, Jawaharulla, along with others, had criminally conspired to form an association and accepted foreign contributions to the tune of Rs. 1.54 crore without going through the regulations under the law.

Noting that the association was not registered and no prior approval had been obtained from the Reserve Bank of India, the CBI registered the case. After trial, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court found them guilty for offences under Section 120-B of the IPC along with Section 4(1)(e) read with Section 23, Section 6 read with S. 23 and Section 11 read with S. 23 of the Foreign Contributions (Regulation) Act 1976 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year each and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. Though an appeal was filed against the conviction and sentence, the Additional Judge dismissed the appeal, thus confirming the conviction and sentence.

In the present revision petition, the petitioners submitted that in the aftermath of the Coimbatore bomb blasts in 1997, which affected the members belonging to a particular community, a relief fund was started by the name of Coimbatore Muslim Relief Fund, to which donations were received from Indian Muslims living in the country and abroad. This relief fund was to aid the rehabilitation of the victims of the bomb blasts. It was submitted that the Government maliciously sent a letter to the Director (FCRA), Ministry of Home Affairs, to investigate the violations of the Act by TKKM. It was submitted that though the funds were collected by CMRF, the case was registered against TMMK.

It was further argued that the Act had not been violated since the contributions were received from Indian citizens and not from foreign source. It was argued that the prosecution had failed to verify the nationality of the donors with the aid of Section 166-A CrPC. It was also argued that while granting sanction to procesute Jawaharulla, there was no application of independent mind and the sanction was merely based on the letter solicited by the Assistant Director of FCRA. It was also argued that no steps had been taken by the prosecution, or documents were relied on by the Magistrate to prove that TMMK was a political party registered with the Election Commission of India as per the Act.

The CBI, on the other hand argued that any foreign contributions without government approval would be a violation of the Act. In the present case, it was argued that since foreign contribution had been proved, there was a violation of Section 6 of the Act. it was further argued that as per evidence, the address of CMRK was shown as “C/o TMMK” which would prove the connection.

The court observed that once the prosecution had charged the accused for receiving foreign contribution in violation of the Act, it was for the accused to show that the contribution was received only from Indian Muslims and was spent for the welfare of the victims which was not done in the present case.

The court further observed that when the trial court had considered all the available evidence and convicted the accused, which has been re-appreciated and confirmed by the appellate court, the High Court could not interfere with the same unless there was some perversity or illegality.

On going through the materials and the legal provision, the court concluded that there was no perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the trial court and the appellate court. Thus, finding no merit in the revisions, the court dismissed the pleas.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr.P. V. Balasubramanian, Senior Counsel for Mr.Rahul M. Shankhar, Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajaratnam, Senior Counsel for Mr.S. S. Ashok Kumar, Mr.J. Sivanandaraj, Senior Counsel for Mr.Akhil Ahmed Akbar Ali

Counsel for Respondents: Mr.K. Sinivasan, Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases

Case Title: MH Jawaharulla v. The Inspector of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 105

Case No: Crl RC 836 of 2017