2011 (2) TMI 154 - SUPREME COURT

Foreign exchange - Search and seizure - Prosecution and penalty - appellant submits that the standard of proof required to bring home the charge in a criminal case is much higher than in the adjudication proceedings and once the appellant has been exonerated in the adjudication proceedings, his prosecution is an abuse of the process of court. - Held that: - in a statute relating to economic offences, there is no reason to restrict the scope of any provisions of the Act. These provisions ensure that no economic loss is caused by the alleged contravention by the imposition of an appropriate penalty after adjudication under section 51 of the Act and to ensure that the tendency to violate is guarded by imposing appropriate punishment after due transaction in terms of section 56 of the Act.

The scheme of the Act makes it clear that the adjudication by the concerned authorities and the prosecution are distinct and separate. No doubt, the conclusion of the adjudication, in the case on hand, the decision of the Special Director dated November 18, 1996, may be a point for the appellant and it is for him to put forth the same before the Magistrate. Inasmuch as the FERA contains certain provisions and features which cannot be equated with the provisions of the Income-tax Act or the Customs Act and in the light of the mandate of section 56 of the FERA, it is the duty of the criminal court to discharge its functions vested with it and give effect to the legislative intention, particularly, in the context of the scope and object of the FERA which was enacted for the economic development of the country and augmentation of revenue. Though the Act has since been repealed and is not available at present, those provisions cannot be lightly interpreted taking note of the object of the Act. - appeal dismissed.