Writ of prohibition cannot block FERA adjudication where a recorded statement gives prima facie jurisdiction; seized cash remains with the authority.

A writ of prohibition will not lie to stop adjudication under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 where the authority has prima facie jurisdiction and the petitioner's recorded statement provides material linking him to the alleged contravention; objections of duress or inadmissibility must be raised in the adjudicatory and appellate process. The Court also declined to order release of seized cash pending adjudication because the amount was the subject of the proceedings and could be liable to confiscation or penalty if the case succeeded. The proceedings were allowed to continue and no interim return of the seized amount was granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to prevent initiation of adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of the petitioner's statement; (ii) Whether the seized amount could be directed to be released pending adjudication.

Issue (i): Whether a writ of prohibition could be issued to prevent initiation of adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of the petitioner's statement.

Analysis: The statement recorded from the petitioner under the Act was treated as material linking him to the alleged contravention. A writ of prohibition lies only where there is a total want of jurisdiction. Since the statement, on its face, provided a basis for proceeding, the petitioner could not prevent adjudication at the threshold. Any challenge based on duress or inadmissibility of the statement could be raised before the adjudicating authority and in the statutory appellate process.

Conclusion: The challenge to the initiation of adjudication proceedings failed and the request for prohibition was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the seized amount could be directed to be released pending adjudication.

Analysis: The money seized was itself the subject-matter of adjudication and could be liable to confiscation and penalty if the proceedings succeeded. In those circumstances, the Court declined to order release of the amount merely on the basis of an offer of limited security, and found no sufficient basis to direct return of the seized cash.

Conclusion: The request for release of the seized amount was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were allowed to continue and no interim return of the seized cash was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A writ of prohibition cannot be used to stop statutory adjudication where there is material, including a recorded statement, giving the authority prima facie jurisdiction; objections such as duress or inadmissibility must be pursued in the statutory proceedings.

---