IMPORTANT POINT
Adjudication founded on analysis of statutory provisions, applicability of letters issued by Reserve Bank of India and nature of transaction carried out between the parties is an adjudication on merits and not on technical grounds.
Adjudicating forum should follow the majority view in a judgment and not the minority view.
Superior Court should not deliberate on an order which is not challenged before it.
When a subsequent decision refers and distinguishes an earlier decision (may be by a larger Bench), it becomes binding precedent. Pronouncement in Radheshyam Kejriwal is a binding precedent.
If adjudication proceeding exonerates the accused on merits, trial of the person would be abuse of process of court.

Headnote:(a) Administration of justice – Adjudication on technical grounds and on merits – Tribunal founding its conclusions on analysis of statutory provisions, applicability of letters issued by Reserve Bank of India and nature of transaction carried out between the parties – It is an adjudication on merit – Cannot be said to be an adjudication on any technical foundation – Attaining finality. (Para 14)
       (b) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Adjudicating forum should follow the majority view in a judgment and not the minority view. (Para 14)
       (c) Administration of justice – Judicial propriety – Order of Tribunal not in issue before High Court – High Court should not have deliberated on the justification of Tribunal’s view. (Para 14)
       (d) Interpretation – Judgments – Binding precedent – Decision in Standard Chartered Bank copiously referred to and distinguished in majority opinion in Radheshyam Kejriwal – Therefore, pronouncement in Radheshyam Kejriwal is a binding precedent. (Para 14)
       (2011) 3 SCC 581; (2006) 4 SCC 278 – Referred
       (e) Administration of justice – Adjudication proceedings as well as proceeding for prosecution – If adjudication proceeding exonerates the accused on merits, trial of the person would be abuse of process of court. (Para 19)
       (2011) 3 SCC 581 – Relied upon
       AIR 1970 SC 962; AIR 1945 Lah 23; (2002) 8 SCC 87; (2005) 4 SCC 370; (1982) 2 SCC 543; (1995) Supp (2) SCC 724; (2004) 2 SCC 731 – Referred
       (f) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 – Section 18(2) r/w section 18(3) – Tribunal holding that there is no violation of Section 18(2) r/w section 18(3) – Also accepting advise of RBI vide letters dated 21.1.1992 and 18.2.1994 that sections 18(2) an (3) do not apply to transactions in question – Without a challenge to Tribunal’s order High Court adverting to and disagreeing with the same – High Court could not do that – High Court holding that Tribunal’s order being on technical grounds, prosecution will continue – Held erroneous. (Para 21)
       Facts of the case:
       The appellant company and its officer were facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act.
       The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate discharged the appellants but the revisional court set aside that order.
       Criminal application thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court.
       Finding of the Court:
       High Court totally erred in law.
       Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals, by special leave, are directed against the order dated 14.10.2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.497 of 2011 assailing the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fort, Greater Bombay in Criminal Revision No.716 of 2008 whereunder the revisional court had dislodged the order of discharge passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mumbai in Complaint Case No.1149/S/2002 wherein the company as well as its officer were facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 56(1)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, 'the Act') for the alleged contravention of the provisions of Sections 18(2) and 18(3) of the Act.

3. As the factual matrix would depict, when the matter was pending for trial before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the adjudicating authority vide order dated 30.03.2005 imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,00,000/-(Rupees two crore only) against the appellant-company and penalty amounting to between Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only) to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lac only) on each of the Directors. Being grieved by the order passed by the adjudicating authority, the company as well as the Directors preferred Appeal No.517 of 2005 and other connected appeals before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (for short, ‘the tribunal’). The tribunal reproduced Section 18 of the Act, analysed the scheme of the provisions, scrutinized the allegations made by the Department, discussed the stand put forth by the assessees and came to hold that:-

“Thus, it is simple and clear from the language that goods which were purchased from Korea and Japan are not covered under Section 18(1)(a). From this sequence, it further flows that Section 18(2) is not applicable to the goods which were sold in international market by way of international transactions because these provisions are made applicable to the goods which are otherwise covered under Section 18(1)(a) and not otherwise. As the goods in question were never exported outside India so Section 18(2) is in no way can be applied to these transactions because such international selling is not governed by Section 18(1)(a) of FER Act. The impugned order has repeatedly said that for purchase of CPT colour tubes from Japan and Korea the appellant spent the foreign exchange. May it be so. But such spending of foreign exchange in international trade by an Indian person is not forbidden by Section 19 of FER Act. Shri A.C. Singh, ALA could not point out any other provision in FER Act where spending of foreign exchange is prohibited in international trade by a person resident in India. It is well known fact that international trade is transacted by spending foreign exchange but the earning of foreign exchange is also made by person resident in India. There is no law whereby Indian resident is regulated from entering into international trade. If that is so, the appellant cannot be held guilty for Section 18(2) read with Section 18(3) of FER Act, 1973.”

[Emphasis added]

4. After so stating, the tribunal proceeded to opine that:-

“11. The act of transferring trade license which was earlier in the name of Videocon Appliances Ltd in favour of the appellant firm hardly has any bearing on the question at hand. Moreover, M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd. Is not held guilty by the impugned order. In that situation, it is difficult to understand that how individual Directors of M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd. Can be held guilty by the impugned order. It is apparent from the impugned order that partner appellants as well as Director appellants are held guilty doubly and separately even when these names are over-lapping and all of them are also shown as directors of M/s. Videocon Appliances Ltd.

12. The Reverse Bank of India by two letters of dated 21.1.1992 and dated 18.2.1994 as at page 46 and 52 of the records has also stated that international transactions o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document