Repeal and saving provisions preserved foreign exchange penalty liability; Article 20(1) and double jeopardy objections failed.

Contravention committed under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 remained enforceable because the 1973 Act and section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserved liabilities incurred and proceedings for their enforcement. The higher maximum penalty under the later law did not invalidate the penalty imposed, as Article 20(1) was satisfied since the punishment stayed within the limit applicable when the offence was committed. Earlier customs penalty proceedings did not create a double jeopardy bar because the customs and foreign exchange contraventions were distinct. The finding of contravention was also supported by the record, including notice, explanation, and absence of Reserve Bank permission.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether proceedings and penalty for contravention committed under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 survived the repeal by virtue of the saving provisions in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the General Clauses Act, 1897; (ii) Whether the penalty could be sustained in view of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India when the later Act prescribed a higher maximum penalty; (iii) Whether earlier customs penalty proceedings barred the present enforcement proceedings on the principle of double jeopardy; (iv) Whether the finding of contravention was unsupported by evidence.

Issue (i): Whether proceedings and penalty for contravention committed under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 survived the repeal by virtue of the saving provisions in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and the General Clauses Act, 1897.

Analysis: The contravention was committed when the repealed Act was in force. Section 81(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 preserved things done and liabilities incurred under the repealed enactment, and section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 saved investigation, legal proceedings, and enforcement of penalties unless a contrary intention appeared. The later Act substantially continued the same prohibition and did not reveal an intention to obliterate liability already incurred. The repeal therefore did not extinguish the pre-existing liability or bar subsequent proceedings for its enforcement.

Conclusion: The proceedings and penalty survived the repeal and were validly maintainable in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty could be sustained in view of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India when the later Act prescribed a higher maximum penalty.

Analysis: Article 20(1) prohibits imposition of a penalty greater than that which could have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the offence. The later enactment prescribed a higher ceiling, but the penalty ultimately imposed was within the lesser limit under the repealed Act. The constitutional bar therefore did not invalidate the penalty imposed on the appellant.

Conclusion: The penalty was not hit by Article 20(1) and was sustainable in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iii): Whether earlier customs penalty proceedings barred the present enforcement proceedings on the principle of double jeopardy.

Analysis: The customs proceedings and the foreign exchange proceedings operated in different fields and rested on distinct statutory infractions. The mere fact that customs penalty proceedings had ended in the appellant's favour did not preclude enforcement action for contravention of foreign exchange law. The constitutional and common-law objection of double jeopardy was therefore inapplicable.

Conclusion: The earlier customs proceedings did not bar the present proceedings and the objection failed in favour of the respondent.

Issue (iv): Whether the finding of contravention was unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: The appellant was given notice, the alleged contravention was set out in the show-cause notice, and the appellant's explanation was considered. The record showed absence of express permission from the Reserve Bank of India for the payments and contractual arrangement with the foreign party. The finding of contravention was thus based on material on record and could not be treated as unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was supported by evidence and the challenge failed in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal raised no ground warranting interference, and the enforcement penalty was upheld as legally sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A repeal does not extinguish liability already incurred for an offence committed under the repealed law where the saving provision and section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve enforcement, and Article 20(1) is satisfied if the penalty imposed does not exceed the maximum permissible under the law in force at the time of the offence.

---