High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL HADI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHASIVAM
R.S. Srikantha Rao
Versus
Special Director, Enforcement Directorate Foreign Exchange, Regulation Act, Government of India, New Delhi
Appeal Against Order No. 173 of 1989
Decided On :Decided On : 21-03-1996
FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT, 1973 - SECTION 68 - INTERPRETATION - SCOPE - APPLICABILITY TO ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 68 APPLIES TO ADJUDICATION PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND NOT ONLY TO CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Director of Bharal Travels Services Private Limited, was found to have contravened S. 8(1) and (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (the Act) read with S. 68(1) and (2) of the Act. The appellant challenged the levy of penalty on him, contending that S. 68 of the Act only applies to criminal proceedings and not to adjudication proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that S. 68 of the Act applies to both criminal proceedings and adjudication proceedings. The Court noted that the marginal note to S. 68, "offences by companies," and the term "punished" used in both Ss. 68(1) and (2) do not limit the application of the section to criminal proceedings only. The Court also contrasted S. 68 of the Act with S. 140 of the Customs Act, 1962, which has a similar marginal note and provisions, and found that the different phraseology used in S. 68 of the Act indicates that its scope is wider than that of S. 140 of the Customs Act.
Issues: Whether S. 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 applies to adjudication proceedings under the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that S. 68 of the Act applies to both criminal proceedings and adjudication proceedings. The Court reasoned that the marginal note to S. 68, "offences by companies," and the term "punished" used in both Ss. 68(1) and (2) do not limit the application of the section to criminal proceedings only. The Court also contrasted S. 68 of the Act with S. 140 of the Customs Act, 1962, which has a similar marginal note and provisions, and found that the different phraseology used in S. 68 of the Act indicates that its scope is wider than that of S. 140 of the Customs Act.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the levy of penalty on the appellant.
ABDUL HADI, J.
1. This Appeal under S. 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Act) is by one R.S. Srikantha Rao, a Director of Bharal Travels Services Private Limited. He failed before both the authorities below. A penalty of Rs. 50,000/- has been concurrently levied on him by them on the footing that he has contravened S. 8(1) and (2) of the Act read with S. 68(1) and (2) of the Act. The impugned order of the first appellate Board dated 30.1.1989 is a common order in three appeals before it which are connected as will be seen presently. The said appeals are Appeal Nos. 213, 214 and 280 of 1986 preferred respectively by the abovesaid company Bharat Travel Services Private Limited, yet another Director of the said company by name K. Sriram and the appellant herein. In the abovesaid common order of the first appellant Board, actually speaking, the penalties levied by the first authority to the extent of Rs. Two Lakhs on the abovesaid Company, to the extent of another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the abovesaid Director Sriram and the above referred to sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the appellant herein, were confirmed. But it appears, the said common order in so far as it levied penalties on the abovesaid company and the Director Sriram has become final, since even according to the learned counsel for respondent, there seems to be no further appeal under the abovesaid S. 54 of the Act by them. Thus, there is only this appeal by the appellant, that is, is so far as the levy of the above referred to Rs. 50,000/- on him.
2. Before actually seeing the relevant facts, we may first mention the material portions of the said Ss. 8 and 68 of the Act. According to S. 8(1), except with the permission of the Reserve Bank, “no person resident in India other than an authorised dealer shall outside India, purchase or otherwise acquire or borrow from any person not being an authorised dealer, any foreign exchange.” The material portion of S. 8(2) says that except with the permission of the Reserve Bank, “no person shall enter into any transaction which provides fro the conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency or foreign currency into Indian currency, at rates of exchange other than the rates for the time being authorised by the Reserve Bank.” The material portion of S. 68(1) of the Act says, “where a person committing contravention of any of the provisions of this Act . is a company, every person who, at the time the contravention was committed, was in charge of and was responsible to, the company in the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished according; provided nothing contained in this sub section shall render any such person liable to punishment if he proves that the contravention took place without his knowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent such contravention”. The material portion of S. 68(2) says, “notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1) where contravention of any of the provisions of this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the contravention has taken place with consented connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any Director . . of the Company, such Director . shall be deemed to be guilty of the contravention and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.”
3. Now, we shall see the relevant facts to see how actually charge is made against the appellant under the abovesaid section. The abovesaid company in which the said Sriram and appellant are also Directors, is doing business of travel agent. The office premises of the said company and the residential premises of the said two Directors were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, resulting in recovery and seizure of incriminating documents.
3 -A) The Statement of the abovesaid Sriram was recorded on 1
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.