FERA penalty limitation and confession-based contravention: belated retraction failed and the penalty was sustained.

Penalty proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 were not time-barred because the Act prescribed no limitation period for imposing penalty, and Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not apply to offences covered by the Economic Offences (In-applicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. A confessional statement admitting the investment and partnership supported the finding of contravention of section 27(1), while the later denial was treated as a belated retraction without evidentiary weight. The penalty was not found excessive on the facts, and the adjudication order was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation. (ii) Whether the appellant had contravened section 27(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and whether the penalty imposed required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the penalty proceedings were barred by limitation.

Analysis: The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 did not prescribe any period of limitation for imposing penalty for contravention. Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was also inapplicable to offences under the enactments covered by the Economic Offences (In-applicability of Limitation) Act, 1974. Section 2 of that Act excluded the operation of Chapter XXXVI in respect of offences covered by the schedule.

Conclusion: The plea of limitation failed and was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant had contravened section 27(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and whether the penalty imposed required interference.

Analysis: The appellant had earlier made a confessional statement admitting investment of Brunei dollars 2,500 as his share in the business and his partnership in the provision shop. The later stand that the venture did not materialise was a belated retraction and was not shown to have been made at the earliest opportunity or to have been involuntary. The finding of contravention was therefore not disturbed, and the penalty was not regarded as excessive on the facts.

Conclusion: The finding of contravention and the penalty were upheld against the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The adjudication order was sustained in full and the appeal was dismissed.

---