Independent prosecution under Foreign Exchange Regulation law may proceed before adjudication, with general authorization sufficient to file complaint.

Prosecution for contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is independent of departmental adjudication under section 51, so a complaint under section 56 is not premature merely because penalty proceedings are still pending. The pendency or incompletion of adjudication does not bar criminal proceedings. A general written authorization by the Central Government under section 61(2)(ii)(b) is sufficient to empower an Enforcement Officer to file such a complaint; the statute does not require a fresh authorization for each case. The criminal proceedings were therefore competent and could continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a complaint under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was premature because it was filed before adjudication and penalty; (ii) Whether a general authorization issued by the Central Government under section 61(2)(ii)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sufficient to empower the complainant to lodge the complaint.

Issue (i): Whether a complaint under section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was premature because it was filed before adjudication and penalty.

Analysis: The scheme of the Act treats prosecution for contravention as distinct from departmental adjudication. The opening words of section 56, read with the structure of sections 51 and 56, indicate that criminal proceedings are in addition to and independent of penalty proceedings. The pendency of adjudication, therefore, does not create a bar to filing or maintaining a complaint under section 56.

Conclusion: The complaint was not premature and was maintainable even before completion of adjudication or imposition of penalty.

Issue (ii): Whether a general authorization issued by the Central Government under section 61(2)(ii)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sufficient to empower the complainant to lodge the complaint.

Analysis: Section 61(2)(ii)(b) permits a complaint to be made by an officer authorized in writing by the Director of Enforcement or the Central Government. The notification issued by the Central Government authorized specified Enforcement Officers to file complaints in respect of offences under section 56. The provision does not require a separate authorization in each individual case.

Conclusion: The complainant was duly authorized, and the general authorization was sufficient.

Final Conclusion: The reference was answered against the petitioners, and the criminal proceedings were held to be competent and capable of continuing.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, prosecution for contravention under section 56 is independent of adjudication under section 51, and a general authorization issued by the Central Government under section 61(2)(ii)(b) is sufficient to enable the authorized Enforcement Officer to file a complaint.

---