Pending appeals do not suspend the obligation to comply with penalty orders under FERA, allowing for criminal prosecution.

1.The accused in E.O.C.C. Nos. 312, 317, 380, 320, 296, 270, 319, 288, 339, 342, 366, 335, 314, 353, 306, 283, 275, 491, 316, 38l and 494 of 1993 on the file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras have filed these petitions under S.482, Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records in the above cases and quash the same.

2. ln E.O.C.C. 312/93, the respondent has filed the complaint against the petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.9755 of 1993, for offence under S.57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act , 1973 (which I shall hereinafter refer to as ' FERA '). The allegations in the complaint are briefly as follows:
The Special Director of Enforcement initiated adjudication proceedings against the accused for contravention of certain sections of the and by his order dated 28-10-1989, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the accused and directed the accused to deposit the penalty imposed, within 45 days of the date of receipt of the said order, at the Office of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras. The said order was served on the accused. In spite of repeated notices, the accused had not paid the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Failure to pay the penalty, imposed by the Special Director of Enforcement, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order is an offence punishable under S.57 of . Hence the complaint.

3. - In E.O.C.C. 3l7/93, the respondents have filed the complaint against the petitioner in Crl. O.P. No. 9756, for offence under S.57 .of the FERA on similar allegations, with regard to the penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed by the Special Director of Enforcement, in his order dated 23-10-1989. In E.O.C.C. 380/93, the respondents have filed the complaint against the petitioner in Crl. O.P. 9902/93, for offence under S.57 of the in respect of the penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs imposed on 12-3-1991, on similar allegations. Likewise, in E.O.C.C: Nos. 320/93, 296/93, 270/93 and 319/93 the respondents in the concerned Crl. O.Ps. have filed the complaint against the petitioners for offence under. S.57 of the , on similar allegations, with regard to the penalty of Rs. 8,50,000/- Rs. 5 lakhs, Rs. 2 lakhs and Rs. 4 lakhs respectively. Likewise, in E.O.C.C. Nos. 288, 274, 339, 149, 366, 335 and 314 of 1993, the respondents in the concerned Crl. O.P. have filed the complaints against the petitioners for offence under S.57 of the , on similar allegations, with regard to the penalty of Rs. 50,000/-, Rs.50,000/-, Rs.70,000/-. Rs. 1 lakh. Rs.5 lakhs, Rs. 1,25,000/- and Rs.1,80,000/- respectively. Likewise, in E.O.C.C. - 353, 306, 283, 275, 491, 316. and 494 of 1993, the respondent in the concerned Crl. O.Ps. have filed complaints against the petitioners for offence under S.57 of the , on similar allegations with regard to the penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 1 lakh, Rs. 10,05,000/-, Rs. 2,02,500/-, Rs.1 lakhs and Rs. l lakh respectively.

4. The first submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitions is that these complaints were filed for offence under S.57 of FERA , on the allegations that accused have not paid the penalties imposed in the adjudication orders for contravention of the previous of , within the stipulated time and that the accused have filed appeals against those adjudication orders before the Appellate Board that the said appeals are pending. The learned counsels would add that if those appeals were allowed and the adjudication orders, imposing penalties were set aside, the premises on which these complaints were laid would be no longer there and so the filing of the complaint