Penalty non-payment prosecution not barred by pending appeal; territorial jurisdiction lies where payment was required and omitted.

A prosecution for failure to pay a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not rendered premature merely because appeals against the adjudication orders were pending; the criminal complaint was an independent proceeding, the original penalty order remained operative absent a stay, and the complaints were maintainable. Territorial jurisdiction lay with the Madras court because the penalty was required to be paid at Madras and the alleged omission occurred where payment should have been made but was not made. The challenge to the prosecutions therefore failed on both prematurity and jurisdiction, and the criminal proceedings were allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether criminal complaints under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were premature because appeals against the adjudication orders were pending, and (ii) whether the Madras Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaints.

Issue (i): Whether criminal complaints under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were premature because appeals against the adjudication orders were pending.

Analysis: Liability under section 57 arose from non-payment of the penalty within the stipulated period after service of the adjudication order. The pendency of an appeal did not, by itself, suspend the operation or consequences of the original adjudication order. The criminal prosecution was an independent proceeding and was not dependent on the ultimate result of the appeal. The possibility that the appellate authority might later modify or set aside the penalty did not render the prosecution invalid at the threshold. The absence of any stay of the adjudication orders also weighed against the plea of prematurity.

Conclusion: The complaints were not premature and were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Madras Magistrate had territorial jurisdiction to try the complaints.

Analysis: The adjudication orders required payment of the penalty at Madras, and the alleged offence was the failure to make that payment within time. The omission constituting the offence therefore occurred where payment had to be made and was not made. On that basis, the place of payment supplied the jurisdictional nexus for the complaints before the Madras court.

Conclusion: The Madras Magistrate had jurisdiction to try the cases.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the prosecutions failed on both prematurity and jurisdiction, and the criminal proceedings were permitted to continue.

Ratio Decidendi: A prosecution for failure to pay a penalty imposed under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is not barred merely because an appeal against the penalty is pending, and territorial jurisdiction lies where the penalty was required to be paid and was not paid.

---