( 1 ) MR K. K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, raised several contentions in support of the appeal; one of them being that having regard to the fact that as the offence is said to have been committed by a company; and as in terms of Section 56 of the Foreign b exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short "the Act"), the punishment of mandatory imprisonment has to be imposed; no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the company and in that view of the matter, the company as well as the person referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 68 thereof cannot be proceeded with.

( 2 ) IN support of the said contention reliance has been placed on a recent three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Asstt. Commr. v. Velliappa textiles Ltd1 We do not prima facie agree with the ratio laid down in velliappa Textiles1.

( 3 ) IN this case the Company is the "authorised dealer" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act. The authorised dealer indisputably is required to comply with the statutory requirements contained in Sections 8, 9 and 49 of " the Act read with Chapter X of the RBI Manual. The contraventions of the provisions of the Act ha