Beneficial foreign contribution law and natural justice bar prosecution and revisional interference without notice

A later beneficial foreign contribution law was treated as applicable where it widened exemptions and made offences compoundable, so a receipt from the petitioner's father, an Indian passport holder, was held to fall within the relative exemption and the earlier prosecution could not continue on the repealed regime. The FIR and consequential proceedings were therefore quashed, with liberty to seek compounding under the later statute. The revisional order directing deemed cognizance was also found unsustainable because it prejudiced the accused without notice or hearing, contrary to the requirement that revisional interference not operate against a person without opportunity to be heard.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution could continue under the repealed foreign contribution regime despite the later enactment, and whether the contribution received from the petitioner's father fell within the statutory prohibition; (ii) whether the revisional order directing deemed cognizance was sustainable in the absence of notice to the petitioner.

Issue (i): whether the prosecution could continue under the repealed foreign contribution regime despite the later enactment, and whether the contribution received from the petitioner's father fell within the statutory prohibition.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the effect of repeal and substitution of the foreign contribution law, the scope of the saving clause, and the nature of the receipts. The Court accepted that the money had been received from the petitioner's father, an Indian passport holder, through foreign entities holding the funds on his behalf, and noted that the income-tax authorities had also treated the receipt as a gift from the father. It further held that the later statute was a beneficial enactment, expanding exemptions and making offences compoundable, so the petitioner could claim the benefit of the subsequent law. On that basis, the Court held that receipt from a relative fell within the exemption and that continuation of prosecution on the old footing was inconsistent with the later statutory regime.

Conclusion: The prosecution could not be sustained, and the FIR and all consequential proceedings were liable to be quashed.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional order directing deemed cognizance was sustainable in the absence of notice to the petitioner.

Analysis: The revisional court exercised power affecting the petitioner's rights without notice, although a revision under the Criminal Procedure Code cannot operate to the prejudice of an accused or other person without affording an opportunity of hearing. The Court treated the summoning-related order as interlocutory and held that the revisional interference, made without notice, was contrary to the mandatory hearing requirement.

Conclusion: The revisional order was unsustainable in law.

Final Conclusion: The petitions succeeded and the criminal proceedings were set aside, with liberty to seek compounding under the later foreign contribution statute.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a later beneficial statute grants a wider exemption and is inconsistent with the basis of an earlier prosecution, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the later law, and revisional orders prejudicial to an accused cannot be made without notice and hearing.

---