Pre-deposit requirement under foreign exchange penalty appeals remains enforceable absent an express waiver, so prosecution was not premature.

A prosecution for non-payment of penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was not premature where the petitioner had merely filed an appeal and no express order had dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement under Rule 6A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 1974. Filing the appeal within time and obtaining an appeal number did not amount to implied dispensation of deposit. In the absence of a specific waiver by the appellate authority, the obligation to pay within the stipulated period remained enforceable, and criminal proceedings could continue.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution for non-payment of penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was premature because the petitioner had filed an appeal and sought dispensation of deposit under the appeal rules.

Analysis: The adjudication order imposing penalty had been communicated to the petitioner, and the appeal was filed within time. However, the statutory scheme required deposit of the penalty amount unless the appellate authority expressly dispensed with that requirement under Rule 6A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation (Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal) Rules, 1974. Mere filing of an appeal and assignment of an appeal number did not amount to an implied dispensation of deposit. In the absence of any specific order dispensing with pre-deposit, the failure to pay within the stipulated period continued to attract the penal consequence under the Act.

Conclusion: The prosecution was not premature and the criminal proceedings were not liable to be quashed.

---