Mere preparation for foreign exchange dealing is not contravention without proof of the prohibited transaction being completed.

Mere preparation or intention to deal in foreign exchange does not constitute contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act unless the prohibited transaction is actually completed. The record showed only inquiries about exchange rates and surrounding circumstances, not a sale or exchange, so inferred intention and reliance on the wife's statement were insufficient to prove the offence. On that basis, the finding of contravention could not be sustained and the penalty and confiscation were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether mere preparation or intention to deal in foreign exchange, without completion of the prohibited act, amounted to contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and justified penalty and confiscation.

Analysis: The seized currency and surrounding circumstances showed only that the respondent had made inquiries about foreign exchange rates and had not progressed to actual sale or exchange. The earlier authority erred in treating preparatory conduct and an inferred intention, including reliance on the wife's statement, as sufficient proof of contravention. Preparation cannot be equated with the commission of the offence, and the record did not establish completion of the prohibited act.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was not sustained, and the penalty and confiscation were rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed as no legal infirmity was found in the appellate order, and no substantial question of law arose.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere preparation or intention, without proof of completion of the prohibited transaction, does not amount to a contravention warranting penal consequences under the Act.

---