-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3056 OF 2007

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3056 OF 2007

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3056 OF 2007

WITH

WITH

WITH

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS. 2981, 2982 & 2983 OF 2007

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS. 2981, 2982 & 2983 OF 2007

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NOS. 2981, 2982 & 2983 OF 2007

Mohamed Iqbal Shaikh .... Applicant

versus

Shri B.V.Survase

The Asstt. Director of Enforcement

and State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent.

Mr. Anilkumar Singh with Mrs. Sarika Deshpande i/b.

M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for the applicant.

Mrs. P.H.Kantharia for Respondent no.1.

Mrs. M.H.Mhatre APP for State.

CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED; 07TH DECEMBER, 2007

DATED; 07TH DECEMBER, 2007

DATED; 07TH DECEMBER, 2007

P.C.;

P.C.;

P.C.;

1. These criminal applications involve a common

question of law and hence the applications are heard

together and are being disposed of by this common

order.

2. The respondent no.1, the Assistant Director of

Enforcement filed a complaint under section 57 of the

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 in the Court of

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. The complaint has been

-2-

filed on 12th July 1993 on account of non compliance

of the order dated 31-3-1992 passed by the Assistant

Director, Enforcement of Directorate, Bombay under

section 50 of the Act. Section 50 postulates that if

any person contravenes any of the provisions of this

Act other than the sections referred to in section 50,

he shall be liable to such penalty not exceeding five

times the amount or value involved in any such

contravention. Section 51 provides that in

adjudicating an issue under section 50, as to whether

the person has committed a contravention of any of the

provisions of the Act, an enquiry has to be held after

giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the person

concerned. In the present case, it is undisputed that

order of penalty has been passed in March 1992 and

thereafter in the year 1993 a complaint has been filed

under section 57, which is pending on the file of the

Metropolitan Magistrate. Section 57 provides that if

any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the

adjudicating officer or the Appellate Board or the

High Court or failes to comply with any of his or its

directions or orders, he shall, upon conviction by a

court be punishable with imprisonment for a term which

may extend to two years or with fine or with both.

Thus the requirement for taking recourse to section 57

by the prosecution, is that the person has failed to

pay the penalty imposed by adjudicatin