Foreign exchange contravention fails where payment is not proved to be made on behalf of a non-resident.

Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 applies only where a payment by a person resident in India is made by order of, or on behalf of, a person resident outside India. On the facts, the material did not establish that the impugned payment was made by order of, or on behalf of, Dr. Raji Menon, and the recipient's lack of connection with the person concerned reinforced that the statutory ingredient was missing. The contravention was therefore not proved, and the appeals succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the charge of contravention under section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was sustainable on the facts, where the payment was not shown to have been made by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India.

Analysis: The statutory prohibition under section 9(1)(d) applies only where a person resident in India makes a payment to, or for the credit of, any person by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India. The material relied upon did not establish that the payment in question was made by order of, or on behalf of, Dr. Raji Menon. On the contrary, the finding that the recipient was not known to the person concerned, and the assumption that the payment, if any, was made with consideration, indicated that the transaction could not be attributed to Dr. Raji Menon in the manner required by the provision.

Conclusion: The charge under section 9(1)(d) was not made out, and the appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: To sustain a contravention under section 9(1)(d), it must be proved that the impugned payment was made by order or on behalf of a person resident outside India; absent that ingredient, the charge fails.

---