The judgment established that an act could not be penalized under subsequent enactments if it was not an offence under the law in force when it was committed, and emphasized the protection of ex-facto laws under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

M.M.Kumar, J.

1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing order dated 17.11.2008 (P.8) passed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement and the corrigendum dated 2.12.2008 (P.9) issued by her. The petitioner has been found guilty of charge under Section 6(3)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for brevity `the FEMA Act) read with Regulation 4 of the Foreign Exchange Management (Acquisition and Transfer of Immovable Property in India) Regulation 2000 (for brevity `the FEMA Regulations). After declaring him guilty in pursuance of the powers conferred on the Deputy Director a penalty of rupees five lacs has been imposed on the petitioner.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised are that the petitioner has been an Indian citizen, holding an Indian Passport. On 5.11.1999 he purchased a plot situated in Ludhiana at an open auction conducted by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur. On 18.2.2003, the Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar initiated investigation against the petitioner alleging that the plot purchased by him in the open auction is an agricultural plot which the petitioner had purchased by violating the provisions of FEMA Act. He was summoned and his statement was recorded. On 13.3.2003 during the course of investigation the respondent informed the petitioner that the plot purchased by him fell under industrial zone and hence there was no violation (P.1) of any penal law. In that regard reference has been made to the letter dated 5.2.2003 issued by the District Town Planner, Ludhiana.

3. The letter dated 13.3.2003 (P.1) addressed by the respondent to the petitioner informing him that the investigation against the petitioner was dropped and the action was challenged by M/s Bicycles Manufacture Corporation, Ludhiana in CWP No. 2977 of 2004 before this Court. In the reply filed before this Court (P.2), the respondents reiterated the stand taken in the letter dated 13.3.2003 (P.1) pleading that the plot purchased by the petitioner fell in industrial zone and there was no violation of FEMA Act by the petitioner. However, on 28.7.2006 when the aforesaid petition was pending (P.3), the Assistant Director of Enforcement filed a complaint under Section 16(3) of the FEMA Act before the Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar, which is adjudicating authority, alleging that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of Section (6)(3) (i) of the FEMA Act read with Regulation 4 of the FEMA Regulations. On 18.8.2006 the matter (CWP No. 2977 of 2004) came up for consideration before this Court. The writ petition was disposed of by holding that there was no necessity to pass any order in respect of letter dated 13.3.2003 ( P.1) as the concerned respondent had already been issued a notice to show cause on 28.7.2006(P.4). The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice by asserting that in the year 1999 he was citizen of India and therefore there was no violation of Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for brevity the FERA Act), which was repealed in the year 2000. He has also pleaded that FEMA Act came into effect from 1.5.2000 and since the petitioner had purchased the plot in question on 5.11.1999 therefore there was no violation of FERA Act and no action could be initiated for violation of any provision of FERA Act on account of Section 49 of FEMA Act. The matter was fixed for hearing on 16.7.2008. The petitioner has asserted that without discussing the question of applicability of FEMA Act and the question of limitation the Deputy Director has pronounced the petitioner guilty of contravening Section 6(3) (i) of FEMA Act read with Regulation 4 of the FEMA Regulations. The petitioner was declared guilty of the charges and penalty of rupees five lacs has been imposed.

4. In the written statement filed by the respondents, the respondents have raised a preliminary objection that an alternative remedy of appeal