Quasi-criminal appellate power under foreign exchange law justified setting aside acquittal and ordering retrial on fresh examination.

Proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were treated as quasi-criminal, and the appellate court's power under section 54 was held comparable to criminal appellate jurisdiction. Where the authorities had recorded acquittal on the footing that no remittance came from abroad through unauthorised channels, the High Court found that the respondent's statement that the amount had been sent from Jordan to India required re-examination. On that basis, the Court concluded that the acquittal could be set aside and a retrial directed. The concurrent orders below were set aside and the matter remitted for fresh decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, the appellate court could set aside the order of acquittal and direct a retrial.

Analysis: The proceedings were treated as quasi-criminal in nature. The adjudicating authority and the Appellate Board had recorded an acquittal on the footing that there was no remittance from abroad through unauthorised channels. On appeal, the Court found that the matter required re-examination, particularly in view of the respondent's statement indicating that the amount had been sent from Jordan to India. Holding that the appellate power under section 54 of the Act could be exercised on the analogy of criminal appellate jurisdiction, the Court concluded that a retrial was warranted.

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, the concurrent orders of the authorities below were set aside, and the matter was remitted for retrial and fresh decision.

---