Foreign exchange prosecution remains independent of adjudication, and authorised courts may validly take cognizance despite repeal and saving issues.

Criminal prosecution under the foreign exchange law was treated as legally distinct from adjudication proceedings, so a show cause notice, pending adjudication, or even the adjudication outcome did not bar institution or continuation of the prosecution. The Court also held that the Special Judge had valid jurisdiction to take cognizance because the repeal and saving provisions, read with the governing notification, preserved and authorised that power. The challenge to cognizance on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity was rejected, and the quashing application failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether criminal prosecution under the foreign exchange law could be sustained independently of adjudication proceedings and without a concluded adjudication. (ii) Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance in view of the repeal and saving provisions and the notification empowering him to try the case.

Issue (i): Whether criminal prosecution under the foreign exchange law could be sustained independently of adjudication proceedings and without a concluded adjudication.

Analysis: The prosecution was held to be a distinct proceeding from adjudication. The existence of a show cause notice or pending adjudication did not prevent criminal prosecution, and the pendency or even the result of adjudication did not bar institution of the criminal case. The Court also noted that the allegations and the petitioner's admitted role were sufficient to proceed with the prosecution.

Conclusion: The prosecution was maintainable independently of adjudication and the objection on that ground failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance in view of the repeal and saving provisions and the notification empowering him to try the case.

Analysis: The Court relied on the repeal and saving clause in the foreign exchange statute and the government notification empowering the Special Judge to try cases under the later enactment. It held that the Special Judge had been duly authorised to proceed and that the cognizance order was not without jurisdiction. The plea based on lack of cognizance power and procedural irregularity was rejected.

Conclusion: The Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance and the challenge to the cognizance order failed.

Final Conclusion: The application for quashing was found to be without merit and the criminal proceeding was allowed to stand.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal prosecution under the foreign exchange law is legally independent of adjudication proceedings, and a duly authorised court may take cognizance where the repeal and saving provisions and governing notification preserve its jurisdiction.

---