Independent adjudication under FERA: criminal acquittal does not bar penalty proceedings or bind the adjudicating authority.

Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, adjudication and criminal prosecution are independent proceedings, so a criminal acquittal does not bind the adjudicating authority. The higher standard of proof in criminal trial meant the acquittal did not erase the factual basis for penalty proceedings or make the penalty unsustainable. Relying on Supreme Court authority under the same enactment, the court reiterated that findings in one proceeding are not conclusive in the other. The challenge to the appellate tribunal's order therefore failed, and the penalty was not barred by the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether acquittal of the appellant in the criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 barred imposition of penalty in adjudication proceedings under the same enactment.

Analysis: The proceedings for adjudication and criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 operate independently. A finding recorded in one proceeding is not conclusive in the other. The criminal court's acquittal, based on the higher standard of proof applicable to criminal cases, did not erase the basis for adjudication or render the penalty unsustainable. The cited Supreme Court authority under the same enactment affirmed that adjudication need not depend on the outcome of prosecution and that the two proceedings are distinct and separate.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not preclude the imposition of penalty, and the challenge to the appellate tribunal's order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, adjudication and criminal prosecution are independent proceedings, and the result of one does not bind the other.

---