Mandatory pre-cognizance notice under foreign exchange law requires effective service; investigation statements cannot replace it.

Prior opportunity to show that the required permission had been obtained is a mandatory statutory precondition to cognizance for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973. That safeguard cannot be treated as satisfied by recording the accused's statement during investigation; a separate notice must be effectively served at the correct address. Where the opportunity notice was sent to an incorrect location and not served at the proper address, the requirement remained unfulfilled and cognizance, as well as the charge-framing order, could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether cognizance and the order framing charge could be sustained despite non-compliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 of giving the accused an opportunity to show that the requisite permission had been obtained, and whether the alleged opportunity notice was effectively served.

Analysis: The proviso to Section 61(2)(ii) makes it mandatory that no complaint for offences punishable under Sections 56 and 57 can be made unless the accused has been given an opportunity to show that he had the necessary permission. The Court held that this safeguard is a statutory precondition to cognizance and cannot be treated as satisfied merely because the accused's statement was recorded during an investigation under Section 40. The record showed that a separate opportunity notice was in fact issued in purported compliance with Section 61(2), but it was addressed to an incorrect location and was not served at the petitioners' correct address. Since the notice was neither sent to nor served at the proper address, the mandatory requirement remained unfulfilled.

Conclusion: The Court held that there was non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973, that cognizance was wrongly taken, and that the impugned order framing charge could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute makes prior opportunity to show requisite permission a condition precedent to cognizance, the requirement must be strictly complied with by effective service of notice, and a statement recorded during investigation cannot substitute for that mandatory safeguard.

---