S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE Petitioner challenges the order of the Additional Chief metropolitan Magistrate (hereafter "the trial Court") dated 17. 02. 2007 whereby he was charged for committing offences punishable under Sections 8 (3) and (4), 18 (2) and (3) and Section 56, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, (FERA ). ( 2 ) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused Petitioner, resident in india purchased and sold foreign exchange from 1991 to 1992 to persons other than authorized dealers. He maintained a Saving Account No. 5002-01-43827 with bank of India, New York, USA. Documents received from the documents received from Sh. Jayanto N. Chaudhary, Counselor, Embassy of India, Washington by his letter dated 18. 02. 2002, i. e. Ex. PW1/22 were relied upon by the prosecution. The investigations allegedly revealed that the bank account was opened on 12. 03. 1986 in the name of the present Petitioner and his father Late Srikant Verma who were authorized to operate it. After the death of his father, the Petitioner by letter dated 20. 08. 86 requested the Vice president of the Bank to transfer the account in his name; he continued to operate the same himself. Transcripts of the bank account for the period 28. 06. 1991 to December 1991 and 31. 3. 1992 to 29. 05. 1992 had been received through letter Rogatory. Those revealed that the petitioner deposited/ lent foreign exchange amounting to US $ 45824-58 and withdrew/ transferred US $ 45029 from the bank account. This was sought to be proved by documents exhibited by the PW 1 as Ex. PW1/21 A-3 to Ex. PW 1/21a -502 and Ex. PW1/32a to Ex. PW1/23a-175. ( 3 ) THE prosecution placed reliance on communications to show that the petitioner was a resident in India and not an NRI since he had been continuously staying in India and carrying on business from India only. Letters received from various travel agencies confirming that foreign exchange was released under the BTQ (Basic Travel Quota) and LERM (Liberalized Exchange Rate management System) quota favouring the petitioner to which only resident Indians are entitled, was placed on record. Further a Letter from M/s. Bajaj Travels, ex. PW 1/24a alongwith documents Ex. PW 1/24a-1 to PW-1/24a-5 and letter dated 20. 12. 1999. Ex. PW1/25 by which M/s. Densons Finance Limited forwarded documents (Ex. Further a Letter from M/s. Bajaj Travels, ex. PW 1/24a alongwith documents Ex. PW 1/24a-1 to PW-1/24a-5 and letter dated 20. 12. 1999. Ex. PW1/25 by which M/s. Densons Finance Limited forwarded documents (Ex. PW1/25a-1 to PW-1/25a-3) and the American Express Letter dated 21. 12. 1999 (Ex. PW1/27) and documents Ex. PW!/27a-1 to PW 1/27a-20 were brought on record and proved by PW1. A Letter dated 28. 06. 2000 of FRRO, as well as letters dated 13. 1. 2000 and 10. 04. 2000, which showed that the Petitioner made short visits abroad for business purposes of Esam Trading Co. Ltd. , and that his journeys were embarked from India and terminated in India only were placed on record of the trial Court. ( 4 ) THE statement of accused Petitioner had been recorded under Section 40 fera by officers of the Enforcement, namely Sh. J. P. Kujur. That was proved as ex. :pw3/a. The Petitioner admitted that he is a resident Indian and Esam Trading company was owned by him. ( 5 ) THE authorities of FERA relied on a red diary given by the former Wife of the petitioner, Ms. Asmita Aggarwal, containing entries in the writing of petitioner, to Sh. Sanjeet Singh, officer of Income Tax department on 16. 08. 1999. Relevant pages of the said diary, Ex. P1/2a-1 to Ex. PW1/2a-39 were taken over the Enforcement Directorate on 2. 5. 2000, by Ex. PW1/2 and the original diary was seized on 08. 03. 2001 under Section 33 (2) FERA. The experts, i. e the Government Examiner and Assistant Government Examiner namely amar Singh and R. Sharma (from Shimla) by their report dated 29. 05. 2001 (received by letter dated 22. 11. 2001 Ex. PW1/4b) confirmed that the writing in the diary Ex. PW 1/2a-1 to Ex. PW1/2a-39 were of the Petitioner. The diary revealed that the Petitioner wrote accounts of various foreign currencies. i. e. US Dollars and Pounds Sterling traded by him during 1991-92. The Petitioner, an indian resident during the said period purchased foreign currency amounting to us $ 1,56,481/- and UK Pound 3,000/- and sold foreign exchange of US $ 2,79,341/- and British Pound 3000 at the rates other than those prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India. PW 4 Ravindra Sharma, the Government Examiner proved the reports issued by the experts. ( 6 ) APPARENTLY, opportunity notice dated 22. 4. PW 4 Ravindra Sharma, the Government Examiner proved the reports issued by the experts. ( 6 ) APPARENTLY, opportunity notice dated 22. 4. 2002 was also issued in terms of Section 61 (2) (ii) of FERA read with Section 3 and 4 of Section 49 of FEMA. The Petitioner was given a chance to state whether any general or special permission had been obtained from RBI for entering into the alleged transactions. ( 7 ) AFTER presentation of the Complainant, and materials, four prosecution witnesses deposed in support of the prosecution version. They were extensively cross -examined. The trial Court, after examining the materials, made the impugned order on charge. ( 8 ) MR. Herjinder Singh, learned Senior counsel urged that the joint account of Late Shrikant Verma MP with the Petitioner with the foreign Bank of india 277, Park Avenue, New York, USA was opened during March 1986 and was introduced by Shri Pawan Verma (IFS) in his official capacity, when posted in the office of the High Commission of India New York, USA and the amount deposit was donated by State Govt. of Madhya Pradesh through culture department for treatment of Late Shrikant Verma, as at that time he (Shrikant Verma) was suffering from food pipe cancer. Therefore the petitioner was not guilty of any wrongdoing or illegality. ( 9 ) IT was urged that Asmita Aggarwal furnished alleged diary to Mr. Sanjeet Singh officer of the IT department on 16. 08. 1999 and it was not duly seized as per provision of Criminal Procedure Code, and that expert opinion was insufficient to frame charges in other absence of corroboratory evidence. ( 10 ) COUNSEL submitted that the trial Court failed to appreciate that Non-Resident Indians were entitled to open and maintain bank accounts. Even otherwise, a person granted permission by the Government for obtaining foreign exchange is entitled to open accounts. In this case it had been granted. This was overlooked by the trial Court. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that the statements and materials relied upon by the trial Court, were in improper exercise of jurisdiction. It was, urged, placing reliance on K. T. S. Mohammed Vs. In this case it had been granted. This was overlooked by the trial Court. ( 11 ) LEARNED counsel submitted that the statements and materials relied upon by the trial Court, were in improper exercise of jurisdiction. It was, urged, placing reliance on K. T. S. Mohammed Vs. Union of India AIR 1992 SC 1831 , that the statements recorded under Section 40, FERA had been retracted, therefore, in the absence of anything to establish legal recovery of the documents relied upon, there was nothing on record to raise grave suspicion that the Petitioner was guilty of the offences he was charged with. ( 12 ) FROM the above factual discussion, it is evident that the authorities under FERA rejected the petitioner's claim that he was an NRI. His bank accounts, transactions whereby large amounts in foreign exchange were purchased and sold, in disregard of exchange regulations, at rates in variance with those notified by RBI, were relied upon. These facts were sought to be corroborated by oral and documentary evidence. The oral testimony included statement of the petitioner under Section 40, FERA. ( 13 ) NOW, while the evidentiary value of a retracted statement under section 40, FERA, may prima facie appear to be weak, it must be remembered that there is no thumb rule which prevents a Court from relying upon it as a material during the charge framing stage. Here, the trial Court did not rely on that statement alone; statements of other prosecution witnesses (duly cross examined by the Petitioner) were also considered by it. The trial Court also had the benefit of other evidence such as bank account statements, expert opinion etc. Thus, the argument about inadmissibility of Section 40 FERA statements pales into insignificance. ( 14 ) THE trial court had also, in the impugned order on charge, relied on sections 59, 71 and 72 which prescribes presumption of culpable mental state of an accused. Of course, this is capable of rebuttal, but during a trial, on the basis of evidence. ( 15 ) WHEN the court has to frame charges, it should to be satisfied about existence, prima facie, of materials and evidence showing grave suspicion of involvement of the accused. The court should not conduct an indepth analysis of the evidence - that is best left for trial. Applying the yardstick, the trial court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner accused. The court should not conduct an indepth analysis of the evidence - that is best left for trial. Applying the yardstick, the trial court proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner accused. ( 16 ) ON an overall consideration of the facts and the impugned order, there is no illegality or jurisdictional infirmity in the trial court's approach. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. ( 17 ) IN view of the above finding, this revision petition, being unmerited, has to fail. It is, therefore, dismissed, alongwith all pending applications. No costs.