Complaint maintainability under FERA upheld where written authorisation and gazette notification proved the officer's competence to prosecute.

Under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, a complaint for offences under section 57 was maintainable where it was instituted by an Enforcement Officer supported by a written authorisation and a Government of India gazette notification authorising the class of officers to lodge complaints. The statutory requirement in section 61(2)(ii) was satisfied by that material, and the notification carried the evidentiary presumption attached to an Official Gazette publication. The Trial Court erred in ignoring the authorisation evidence and in treating the absence of locus standi as fatal. The finding that cognizance was bad for want of authority was unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with the matter remitted for trial continuation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was maintainable in view of the statutory requirement as to who may institute a complaint and whether the written authorisation and gazette notification proved the complainant's competence to prosecute.

Analysis: Section 61(2)(ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 permits cognizance of offences under section 57 only upon a written complaint by the Director of Enforcement, an officer authorised in writing by the Director or the Central Government, or an authorised officer of the Reserve Bank. The record contained an authorisation certificate and a Government of India gazette notification authorising Enforcement Officers to lodge complaints. The notification, being a public document published in the Official Gazette, attracted the evidentiary presumption attached to such publications. The Trial Court erred in ignoring the authorisation material and in treating the absence of locus standi as fatal without considering the documentary and oral evidence on record.

Conclusion: The complaint was maintainable and the finding that cognizance under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was bad for want of authority was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted for continuation of the trial in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute permits prosecution only by specified officers or by officers authorised in writing, a valid written authorisation and an operative gazette notification authorising the class of officers are sufficient to sustain the complaint, and such materials cannot be ignored in assessing maintainability.

---