FERA summons non-compliance must be prosecuted under the special statute, not IPC, and cognizance can be time-barred

Non-compliance with a summons under section 40(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is punishable under section 56 of that Act, not under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. If the complaint and cognizance order invoke only section 174, the proceeding cannot be sustained on a different statutory basis. Once the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 came into force, section 49(3) barred cognizance of offences under the repealed enactment after the sunset period, and failure to amend the complaint within that period could not be treated as a curable irregularity. The conversion from summons case to warrant case therefore had no legal foundation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a complaint alleging non-compliance with a summons issued under Section 40(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be proceeded with as an offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and whether cognizance could thereafter be taken under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 after the expiry of the period prescribed by Section 49(3) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.

Analysis: The complaint and the original cognizance order referred only to Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The controlling legal position was that refusal to comply with a summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is punishable only under Section 56 of that Act and not under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Once the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 came into force, Section 49(3) barred cognizance of an offence under the repealed enactment after the specified sunset period. No amendment or altered complaint invoking Section 56 was filed within that period, and the attempt to treat the omission as a mere irregularity could not cure the absence of lawful cognizance. The consequent conversion of the matter from a summons case into a warrant case under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was therefore without legal foundation.

Conclusion: The complaint was not maintainable under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, cognizance under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was barred after the statutory sunset period, and the order converting the case into a warrant trial was unsustainable; the petition succeeded and the proceedings were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute specifically prescribes the offence and a special limitation or sunset period bars later cognizance, criminal proceedings cannot be sustained by invoking a different penal provision or by treating the omission as a curable irregularity.

---