FERA adjudication and criminal prosecution are independent, so acquittal in criminal case does not bar departmental penalty.

Under FERA, adjudication for contravention and criminal prosecution operate as separate and independent remedies, so a finding in one proceeding does not bind the other. An acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically wipe out the basis for a departmental penalty or preclude its sustenance in adjudication. The appellate authority was therefore justified in maintaining the penalty despite the acquittal, and the Tribunal's order modifying the penalty was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether acquittal in the criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act barred or nullified the penalty imposed in adjudication proceedings under the same Act.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treats adjudication for contravention and criminal prosecution as separate and independent remedies. A finding recorded in one proceeding does not bind the other, and an acquittal in the criminal case does not automatically erase the basis for departmental penalty. The appellate authority was therefore justified in sustaining the penalty despite the appellant's acquittal in the criminal prosecution.

Conclusion: The answer is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent; the criminal acquittal was not binding on the appellate authority and did not preclude the penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the order of the Appellate Tribunal modifying the penalty was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under FERA, adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution are independent, and a decision in one does not conclusively determine the other.

---