Mumbai: After fighting a 23-year-old long legal battle, a 74-year-old Malabar Hill resident, Hemant Kumar Iswardas Sanghvi, has been acquitted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate of the Esplanade Metropolitan Magistrate Court.
The court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, primarily due to the prosecution’s failure to examine the complainant in the case.
The case dates back to August 12, 1994, when Sanghvi was accused of violating the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973. However, the First Information Report (FIR) was only registered on February 14, 2002, and charges were framed much later on October 15, 2018. The trial formally commenced on December 4, 2019.
Delivering the verdict, Magistrate G.R. Dhepe observed that the Enforcement Directorate (ED), which had arrested Sanghvi, had imposed a penalty of ₹1.75 lakh under FERA. Although Sanghvi had eventually paid the penalty via demand draft on January 14, 2025, the prosecution could not prove that proper demand notices had been served on him.
“The accused is an elderly person. Considering the nature of the offence, payment of penalty by the accused, and the evidence on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence. Hence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted,” the court ruled.
Sanghvi was charged under Section 57 of FERA, 1973, and provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA). The then Deputy Director of the ED had imposed a personal penalty of ₹1.75 lakh in 1994. The adjudication order was reportedly served to him on August 17, 2001, requiring payment within 45 days. The ED later filed a complaint after he allegedly failed to comply.
Sanghvi, however, denied all allegations, claiming he was falsely implicated. He asserted that in 1994, he was involved in his family’s construction business and had no dealings related to foreign exchange violations. He also contended that he never received any adjudication order or show cause notice.
The prosecution examined just one witness, Assistant ED Officer Sunil Bhimrao More, who stated that the complaint was filed by Enforcement Officer N.M. Madesha in 2002. However, during cross-examination, More admitted he had no knowledge of when the offence occurred or which officer had detected it. He also denied that the adjudication order had been served on Sanghvi under a panchnama.
It was also found by the court that the complainant, N.M. Madesha, was never examined by the prosecution, which instead filed a “evidence closed pursis” — which means that it would not present any further evidence.
The court found that the absence of key prosecution witnesses and lack of conclusive evidence significantly weakened the case. It noted that while Sanghvi had eventually paid the penalty, the prosecution had failed to establish that he was properly notified or given an opportunity to respond within the required time.
