Court Upholds Decision on FERA Prosecution Order for Unauthorized Foreign Currency Possession The court upheld the lower court's decision not to interfere with the prosecution order under FERA for possession of unauthorized foreign currencies. The ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Court Upholds Decision on FERA Prosecution Order for Unauthorized Foreign Currency Possession
The court upheld the lower court's decision not to interfere with the prosecution order under FERA for possession of unauthorized foreign currencies. The petitioner's claim of receiving the currency from another individual for depositing into an NRE account did not absolve him of potential FERA violations. The burden of proving lawful possession of foreign exchange exceeding Rs 15,000 was placed on the petitioner, and the court dismissed the revision, closing the connected miscellaneous petition.
Issues: Challenge to order of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate regarding prosecution under FERA for possession of foreign currencies without authorization.
Analysis: The revision challenged an order regarding prosecution under FERA for possession of foreign currencies without authorization. The petitioner was found in possession of US$ 5014 during a search, allegedly acquired from unauthorized sources. The petitioner claimed the currency was to be deposited into his brother-in-law's NRE account at the instance of another individual. The prosecution argued that even if the currency belonged to the other individual, it would still constitute borrowing prohibited under FERA. The burden of proving lawful possession of foreign exchange exceeding Rs 15,000 was placed on the petitioner by section 71 of FERA.
The Court clarified that a petition seeking discharge was maintainable even after evidence recording under section 244 Cr.P.C. However, they upheld the lower court's decision not to interfere with the prosecution order. The petitioner's claim of receiving the currency from another individual for depositing into an NRE account did not absolve him of potential FERA violations. The prosecution could still establish a case of borrowing prohibited under FERA, and the burden of proving lawful possession of the foreign exchange exceeding Rs 15,000 rested with the petitioner. Consequently, the revision was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
AI OCR ✕
of 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
