Guided enforcement under foreign exchange law upheld, with initial adjudication required before any complaint to court.

Sections 23 and 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 were upheld as constitutionally valid under Article 14. The court held that foreign exchange contraventions formed a special class and that the Act supplied a guided enforcement scheme rather than an unguided choice between adjudication and prosecution. Section 23-D required the Director of Enforcement to begin with adjudication and allowed a court complaint only where the available penalty appeared inadequate. Section 23(3) operated within that same controlled framework and did not create a free-standing discretionary election. The writ petitions therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether Sections 23 and 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 were invalid as offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the Director of Enforcement had an unguided choice between adjudication and prosecution.

Analysis: The challenge was rejected in light of the Supreme Court decisions upholding the validity of the statutory scheme. The provisions relating to foreign exchange offences constituted a special class, and the Act itself supplied the governing framework for enforcement. Section 23-D required the Director of Enforcement to commence with adjudication and permitted a complaint to court only when the penalty available to him appeared inadequate. That restriction furnished the necessary guidance and removed any suggestion of arbitrary choice. The further safeguard in Section 23(3) did not displace the initial adjudicatory stage; it operated within the same scheme and did not create a free-standing, unguided election between two mutually independent procedures.

Conclusion: Sections 23 and 23-D were held to be valid and not violative of Article 14, and the petitioner's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed because the statutory mechanism for adjudication and complaint under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was upheld as constitutionally permissible.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory scheme regulating foreign exchange contraventions does not offend Article 14 where it prescribes a guided enforcement process, requires initial adjudication, and permits referral to court only on the controlled ground that the authority considers its own punitive power inadequate.

---