Foreign exchange contraventions proved on admitted receipt and corroborative evidence; payment purpose and strict criminal proof were irrelevant.

Admission of receipt and corroborative material were treated as sufficient to sustain findings of contravention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act on a preponderance of probabilities. Receipt of money from a person resident outside India was held to complete the contravention under section 9(1)(b), and the stated purpose of the payment did not alter its legal character. Receipt of foreign exchange in the United States, together with the surrounding circumstances and part-payment evidence, was accepted as proof of receipt and non-surrender to an authorised dealer under section 14. The penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether receipt of Rs. 30,000 from a person resident outside India constituted contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. (ii) Whether receipt of foreign exchange in the United States and failure to surrender it to an authorised dealer constituted contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether receipt of Rs. 30,000 from a person resident outside India constituted contravention of section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The admitted receipt of the amount was treated as sufficient to complete the contravention. The explanation that the amount was taken for costume expenses did not affect the legal character of the receipt. The subsequent use of the money was held to be irrelevant to the existence of the offence.

Conclusion: The contravention under section 9(1)(b) was established.

Issue (ii): Whether receipt of foreign exchange in the United States and failure to surrender it to an authorised dealer constituted contravention of section 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: The record was held to show actual receipt of foreign exchange in the United States. The statement of the person who arranged the payments, together with surrounding circumstances and the admitted part-payment, was accepted as substantive evidence in the quasi-judicial adjudication. The rules of strict criminal evidence were held inapplicable, and the material on record was found sufficient to support the conclusion that foreign exchange had been received and not surrendered as required.

Conclusion: The contravention under section 14 was established.

Final Conclusion: The penalties were upheld and no infirmity was found in the impugned order on either count.

Ratio Decidendi: In adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, admission of receipt and corroborative material can sustain a finding of contravention on a preponderance of probabilities, and the offence is complete upon receipt of the prohibited amount or foreign exchange.

---