Broad construction of "whoever" under foreign exchange law includes partnership firms; procedural adjudication amendments may apply retroactively.

The expression "whoever" in section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was construed in its plain and natural sense to include a partnership firm, so the firm could be proceeded against for contravention of section 12(2) relating to repatriation of foreign exchange. The amended adjudication machinery under section 23(1) read with section 23C was treated as procedural, and therefore capable of applying to contraventions committed before the amendment came into force, because no vested right exists in a particular forum or mode of adjudication. On that basis, liability and penalty were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the word "whoever" in section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before amendment, included a partnership firm and exposed it to liability for contravention of section 12(2). (ii) Whether the amended adjudication machinery under section 23(1) read with section 23C could be applied to contraventions committed before the amendment came into force.

Issue (i): Whether the word "whoever" in section 23(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, before amendment, included a partnership firm and exposed it to liability for contravention of section 12(2).

Analysis: The expression "whoever" was read in its plain and natural sense and in conjunction with section 12(2). The statutory scheme, including section 23(4), showed that the Act contemplated liability not only of the individual who actually committed the contravention but also of companies and other bodies corporate. On that construction, the expression was wide enough to include an association of persons such as a partnership firm.

Conclusion: Yes. A partnership firm fell within the connotation of "whoever" and could be proceeded against for failure to repatriate foreign exchange.

Issue (ii): Whether the amended adjudication machinery under section 23(1) read with section 23C could be applied to contraventions committed before the amendment came into force.

Analysis: The governing principle is that there is no vested right in a particular forum or procedure, absent constitutional objection. The amendment altering the mode of adjudication was procedural in character, and the earlier decision relied on held that such procedural changes could apply to prior contraventions. Accordingly, initiation of adjudication proceedings for pre-amendment contraventions was permissible.

Conclusion: Yes. The amended provisions could validly be applied to contraventions committed before the amendment date.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were liable for the contravention and the enforcement penalty was sustained, so the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An expression used in a penal or regulatory provision must receive its plain and natural meaning where the statutory context so requires, and a procedural amendment governing adjudication may operate on prior contraventions because no person has a vested right in a particular procedure or forum.

---