Pendency of penalty appeals does not automatically stay prosecution; courts may grant only limited adjournment where necessary.

Pendency of an appeal against an adjudication or penalty order does not, by itself, bar or suspend prosecution under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The criminal proceeding may continue notwithstanding the appeal, and the proper course is to seek expeditious disposal of the appellate challenge. A criminal court may, in appropriate circumstances, grant a limited adjournment or postponement if the related proceeding is likely to conclude imminently and materially affect the case, but there is no rule requiring an indefinite stay where that would frustrate the prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, should be stayed pending disposal of appeals against the penalty order before the Appellate Board.

Analysis: The pendency of appeals against the adjudication order did not create any legal bar to the institution or continuance of the prosecution. The earlier view that the complaints could proceed remained undisturbed, and the proper course for the petitioners was to seek early disposal of the appeals. The criminal court may, in an appropriate case, adjourn or postpone the trial if the outcome of another proceeding is imminent and has a bearing on the case, but there is no rigid rule requiring an indefinite stay, and such discretion must not frustrate the object of the prosecution.

Conclusion: The request for stay of the criminal proceedings was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Pendency of an appeal against an adjudication or penalty order does not, by itself, bar or suspend prosecution for failure to pay the penalty, though a criminal court may in its judicial discretion grant a limited adjournment where the related proceeding is imminently likely to conclude.

---