Independent adjudication and prosecution under foreign exchange law allowed criminal complaint despite pending appeal and prior notice.

Adjudication and criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were treated as independent remedies, so a pending appeal against an adjudication order did not bar a criminal complaint. Section 56 was construed as extending penal liability to contraventions of the Act generally, making a prosecution for breach of Section 9(1)(b) maintainable. The challenge based on irrelevant considerations, alleged unequal treatment, and lack of a fresh pre-complaint opportunity under Section 61(2) also failed because prior notice in the adjudication process was sufficient before cognizance, and differing treatment in another matter did not establish arbitrariness.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether pendency of an appeal against adjudication barred criminal prosecution under the Act; (ii) whether contravention of Section 9(1)(b) was prosecutable under Section 56 of the Act; (iii) whether the prosecution was vitiated by irrelevant considerations, alleged unequal treatment, or failure to grant a fresh opportunity before complaint under Section 61(2).

Issue (i): Whether pendency of an appeal against adjudication barred criminal prosecution under the Act.

Analysis: The power to adjudicate and the power to prosecute were held to be independent and not inter-dependent. Section 56 was treated as creating liability to prosecution without prejudice to any penalty imposed in adjudication. On that basis, the pending appeal against the adjudication order did not disable the authority from launching the criminal complaint.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not barred by the pending adjudication appeal and this contention failed, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether contravention of Section 9(1)(b) was prosecutable under Section 56 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 56 was read as making contraventions of the Act punishable generally, subject only to the specific statutory exceptions mentioned therein. The argument that only certain enumerated provisions created offences was rejected because the statute itself extended penal consequences to contraventions of other provisions, including Section 9(1)(b).

Conclusion: A criminal prosecution for contravention of Section 9(1)(b) was maintainable, against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the prosecution was vitiated by irrelevant considerations, alleged unequal treatment, or failure to grant a fresh opportunity before complaint under Section 61(2).

Analysis: The petitioner's past conduct was held relevant to the decision to prosecute, and no arbitrariness or discriminatory treatment was found merely because another case was dealt with differently on its own facts. The governmental relaxation relied on was treated as relating to income-tax treatment and not as overriding the foreign exchange restrictions. As to Section 61(2), the proviso was construed as requiring that an opportunity to show permission be given at some stage before cognizance, not necessarily by a second notice immediately before prosecution; a prior notice in adjudication was sufficient.

Conclusion: The challenge on these grounds failed, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petition seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings was rejected in full, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Adjudication and criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are independent remedies, and a prior opportunity to show permission satisfies the statutory notice requirement so long as it is given before cognizance is taken.

---