Independent prosecution under foreign exchange law can proceed despite pending adjudication; discharge was unavailable.

Prosecution under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is distinct from adjudication under section 51, so pending adjudicatory proceedings do not bar criminal proceedings under the Act. The court noted that section 56 operates without prejudice to any penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer, showing that prosecution may proceed independently of the administrative process. Discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also unavailable because evidence under section 244 had not yet been recorded and the statutory conditions for discharge were not met. The accused therefore remained liable to face the prosecution notwithstanding the pending adjudication.

---

---

Issues: Whether a prosecution under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could proceed independently of pending adjudication under section 51 of that Act, and whether the accused was entitled to discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on that ground.

Analysis: The application was one for discharge under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a provision that permits discharge only in limited circumstances after the evidence referred to in section 244 has been taken and only where no case is made out which, if unrebutted, would warrant conviction. The evidence had not yet been recorded, and the facts pleaded did not satisfy the statutory requirements for discharge. On the substantive objection, the scheme of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 treats adjudication under section 51 and prosecution under section 56 as distinct remedies. Section 56 begins with a non obstante type phrase making prosecution without prejudice to any penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer, which shows that criminal prosecution is not dependent upon completion of the adjudicatory process. The pendency of proceedings before the adjudicating authority, therefore, does not bar institution or continuation of criminal proceedings under the Act.

Conclusion: The accused was not entitled to discharge, and the prosecution was maintainable notwithstanding the pending adjudication proceedings.

---