Disobedience of FERA summons and inherent criminal jurisdiction: limitation does not bar relief, and the complaint was restored.

Disobedience of a summons issued under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as a contravention punishable under section 56, making the complaint maintainable. The court also held that no limitation period governs the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so delay alone cannot sustain an otherwise illegal order. On those grounds, the plea of limitation was rejected and the trial court's impugned order was set aside, with the complaint restored to proceed in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether non-compliance with summons issued under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 constituted a contravention punishable under section 56 of that Act; (ii) whether the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether non-compliance with summons issued under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 constituted a contravention punishable under section 56 of that Act.

Analysis: The binding effect of summons under section 40, read with the scheme and object of the Act, showed that disobedience of such summons amounted to a contravention of the Act or of a direction issued under it. The earlier contrary view stood displaced by the Supreme Court's interpretation, and the special nature of the enactment supported a construction that made the enforcement provisions workable.

Conclusion: Disobedience of summons under section 40 was held to fall within section 56, and the complaint under section 56 was maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was barred by limitation.

Analysis: No period of limitation governs exercise of inherent jurisdiction under section 482. The power is meant to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, so delay by itself does not validate an order that is otherwise illegal.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order of the trial court was set aside and the complaint was restored to proceed in accordance with law.

---