TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether disobedience of a summons issued under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, read with Rule 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974, amounts to contravention of the Act so as to attract punishment under Section 56(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Analysis: Section 56(1) penalises a person who contravenes any provision of the Act or any rule, direction or order made thereunder. Section 40 authorises the issuance of summons for appearance or production of documents, while Rule 3 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules, 1974, governs service, including substituted service by affixture when personal service is not possible. The evidence showed that summons had been issued and served by affixture, but the core allegation remained only that the respondent did not appear in response to the summons. The Court held that non-compliance with a summons is not the same as contravention of the Act itself, and mere disobedience of summons does not constitute the offence contemplated by Section 56(1).
Conclusion: Disobedience of the summons did not amount to an offence under Section 56(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, and the acquittal was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish a punishable contravention under the Act, and the appeal against acquittal was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Disobedience of a summons issued under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, is not equivalent to contravention of the Act or its rules for the purpose of criminal liability under Section 56(1).
TaxTMI 
