Foreign exchange prosecution can proceed despite prior adjudication; departmental exoneration does not bar independent criminal assessment.

Criminal prosecution for alleged foreign exchange contraventions was held maintainable despite an earlier enforcement adjudication in favour of the noticees. The court treated adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution as distinct in nature and object, and held that findings by the adjudicating authority do not bind the criminal court. It further held that Article 20(3) and the principle underlying Section 300 CrPC did not bar the prosecution where the statutory scheme permits both remedies. The criminal court could independently assess the evidence and reach its own conclusion on the alleged contravention, so prior departmental exoneration did not preclude prosecution.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal prosecution under the foreign exchange law can be sustained on the same facts despite an earlier adjudication finding in favour of the noticees, and whether such prosecution is barred by double jeopardy or the principle underlying Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Analysis: The proceedings before the enforcement adjudicating authority and a criminal prosecution are distinct in nature and object. An adjudicating authority is not a criminal court trying an offence, and its finding does not bind the criminal court. The protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not bar a subsequent prosecution where the statutory scheme permits both adjudication and prosecution. Even if the adjudicating authority has not found sufficient material to sustain the departmental charge, the criminal court remains free to examine the evidence independently and may reach its own conclusion on the alleged contravention.

Conclusion: The prosecution was maintainable notwithstanding the prior adjudication, and the petition for quashing failed.

Final Conclusion: Prior departmental exoneration did not immunise the petitioners from criminal prosecution on the same set of facts, and the criminal court was not precluded from independently determining the alleged foreign exchange contraventions.

Ratio Decidendi: Adjudicatory findings in enforcement proceedings do not bar or bind a subsequent criminal prosecution on the same facts, and such parallel proceedings do not amount to double jeopardy.

---