TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the amended adjudication scheme under section 23(1)(a) and section 23D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 operated retrospectively so as to apply to a contravention alleged to have been committed before the amendment, and whether the accused had a vested right to be tried only by an ordinary criminal court; (ii) whether section 23(1)(a), as amended, offended Article 20(1) of the Constitution by prescribing a higher or minimum penalty for the past offence.
Issue (i): whether the amended adjudication scheme under section 23(1)(a) and section 23D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 operated retrospectively so as to apply to a contravention alleged to have been committed before the amendment, and whether the accused had a vested right to be tried only by an ordinary criminal court.
Analysis: The amended provisions shifted adjudication in specified cases from criminal trial by a Magistrate to inquiry and penalty adjudication by the Director of Enforcement. The governing principle applied was that no person has a vested right in any particular course of procedure, and a person accused of an offence has no fundamental right to be tried by a particular court or under a particular procedure unless some constitutional bar is shown. The change was treated as procedural in nature and did not impair any substantive or vested right. The absence of an express statement of retrospectivity did not matter for a procedural amendment, and no appellate right under the Criminal Procedure Code was affected because no prosecution under that Code had been commenced.
Conclusion: The amended procedure applied to the alleged contravention, and the challenge based on vested right and retrospectivity failed.
Issue (ii): whether section 23(1)(a), as amended, offended Article 20(1) of the Constitution by prescribing a higher or minimum penalty for the past offence.
Analysis: The amended provision was construed as prescribing only a maximum penalty, not a minimum one. The words used did not authorise punishment greater than what could have been imposed under the earlier provision, and therefore the amendment did not increase the penal liability in a manner prohibited by Article 20(1).
Conclusion: The challenge under Article 20(1) failed.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's order quashing the adjudication proceedings was set aside, and the writ petition stood dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A procedural amendment that changes the forum or mode of adjudication does not create a vested right to trial by a particular court, and an amended penal provision does not offend Article 20(1) unless it actually increases punishment beyond what the earlier law permitted.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
