Foreign exchange possession and NRE deposit can still attract liability under FERA, defeating discharge.

In a prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, discharge was refused because the prosecution materials still disclosed an offence. Even if the foreign exchange was assumed to belong to another person, the admitted position was that the petitioner possessed it for deposit in an NRE account, and the prosecution could contend that this amounted to borrowing foreign exchange otherwise than through an authorised dealer, attracting section 8(1). The court also noted that the burden of proving lawful possession of foreign exchange beyond the permissible limit lay on the petitioner under section 71. The revision therefore failed and discharge was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to discharge in a prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the ground that the foreign exchange was only carried for deposit in another person's NRE account and that the prosecution materials did not make out an offence.

Analysis: The question of maintainability of the discharge petition after evidence under section 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was noted, but interference was declined on merits. Even if the foreign exchange were assumed to belong to another person, the admitted case was that the petitioner was in possession of the currency for deposit in an NRE account, and the prosecution was still entitled to contend that the transaction involved borrowing of foreign exchange otherwise than through an authorised dealer, which would attract section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The burden of establishing lawful possession of foreign exchange beyond the permissible limit lay on the petitioner under section 71 of that Act.

Conclusion: The petitioner was not entitled to discharge and the revision failed.

---