IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prosecutions under FERA can continue post-repeal if initiated within two years under the provisions of FEMA.

JUDGMENT :

Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.

1. The instant revisional application has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 1st Court, Calcutta in Criminal Revision No. 175 of 2012, dismissing thereby the aforesaid revisional application and affirming the judgment and order dated 30.08.2012 passed by the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta in Case No. C-6032 of 2001 (T.R. No. 621 of 2001) convicting the petitioner for commission of an offence punishable under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months more.

2. The allegations portrayed in the said complaint are precisely to the effect that:-

(a) The Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata in exercise of powers conferred upon him under Section 51 read with Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “FERA”) found the petitioner guilty of violation of the provisions of Section 18(2) and 18(3) of the FERA and accordingly imposed a penalty of Rs.1,50,000/- upon the petitioner vide adjudication order no. 33/97/AD dated 16.05.1997.

(b) In the said order the Assistant Director of Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata directed the petitioner to deposit the penalty amount in the Kolkata office of Enforcement Directorate at 8A, Lindsay Street, Calcutta – 700037 within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order.

(c) The petitioner, inspite of receipt of such adjudication order, failed to deposit the aforesaid penalty amount within the stipulated period. In reply to the letter bearing no. T-566/Cal/97/PRC/(AP-8)/5605 dated 14.07.1997 the petitioner vide his letter dated 04.08.1997 informed that he had preferred an appeal before the FERA, Appellate Board, New Delhi which was registered as Appeal No. 268/97. However, no stay order was granted by the FERA, Appellate Board, New Delhi to that effect.

(d) The petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court which did not grant any order of stay.

(e) Failing to pay the penalty imposed upon him by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Kolkata who was an Adjudicating Officer, the petitioner committed an offence punishable under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

3. The Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, upon receipt of the aforesaid petition of complaint, took cognizance of the offence disclosed therein and accordingly transferred the case to the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta for disposal.

4. The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 15th Court, Calcutta upon receiving the case records issued summons in the name of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner duly appeared before the Learned Court below and was examined under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The substance of the accusations were read over and explained to the petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case the prosecution examined 1 witness while the defence adduced none.

7. The Learned Advocate representing the appellant stated as follows:-

(a) The petitioner was conducting the business of manufacture and export of leather jackets under the name and style M/s A.R. Leathers.

(b) In the usual course of business, the petitioner exported leather jackets to one Bocate International of Berlin, Germany and one Amber International of New York, USA. The petitioner despatched the said goods by airway to Germany in September, 1993 as well as in December, 1993.The petitioner despatched the said goods by airway to USA on 01.12.1993.

(c) The aforesaid foreign buyers refused to make payments after receipt of goods from the airport godown to the petitioner. Under such compelling circumstances the petitioner applied before the RBI for extension of time for the r