Foreign exchange contravention upheld where receipts were admitted through local persons on instructions from abroad, with saving law preserving earlier liability.

A later categorical admission that sums were received through persons in India on instructions from a relative abroad was treated as sufficient to establish foreign exchange contravention, because the receipts were not shown to be through an authorised foreign exchange channel. Liability under the repealed 1947 Act was preserved for a September 1973 receipt, as the saving effect of the General Clauses Act and the 1973 Act kept offences committed under the old law enforceable. For receipts in February and May 1974, the statutory Explanation to Section 9(1)(b) did not assist because the receipts were not proved to be by order or on behalf of an authorised dealer.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant had contravened Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of his later statement and the surrounding circumstances; (ii) whether the 1947 Act could still be invoked for a receipt made in September 1973 despite the coming into force of the 1973 Act; (iii) whether the receipts in February and May 1974 fell outside Section 9(1)(b) because the Explanation was not attracted.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant had contravened Section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on the basis of his later statement and the surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The appellant's subsequent statement expressly admitted receipt of the sums through persons in India on the instructions of his brother resident in Singapore. The Court treated this admission, together with the manner of receipt through a local drawer and not through an authorised foreign exchange channel, as sufficient to sustain the finding of contravention. The contention that payment by cheque excluded the provisions was rejected because the cheque was drawn locally in India and was not shown to be part of an authorised transmission from abroad.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention was upheld against the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the 1947 Act could still be invoked for a receipt made in September 1973 despite the coming into force of the 1973 Act.

Analysis: The Court held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, read with Section 81(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, preserved liability for offences committed while the old Act was in force. Repeal of the 1947 Act did not efface liability for a contravention already completed before the new Act came into force.

Conclusion: Invocation of the 1947 Act for the September 1973 receipt was held to be valid.

Issue (iii): Whether the receipts in February and May 1974 fell outside Section 9(1)(b) because the Explanation was not attracted.

Analysis: The Explanation to Section 9(1)(b) was held to apply where receipt is by order or on behalf of an authorised dealer without a corresponding inward remittance. On the facts, the receipts were not shown to be by order or on behalf of any authorised dealer, but were received on instructions from a person abroad through local persons in India. As the statutory Explanation did not assist the appellant, the department was not required to establish the further factual premise contended for by him.

Conclusion: The challenge to the Section 9(1)(b) finding failed.

Final Conclusion: All the contentions having failed, the appellate challenge to the penalty order was rejected and the foreign exchange contravention findings were affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: A later categorical admission of receipt through local persons on instructions from abroad can sustain a finding of foreign exchange contravention, and liabilities incurred under a repealed enactment continue to be enforceable where the saving provision preserves offences committed under the old law.

---