Strict construction of penal law bars Section 56 liability for failure to comply with a summons under foreign exchange law.

Failure to appear or produce documents in response to a summons under Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was analysed as distinct from contravention of the Act itself. Section 40 authorised the Enforcement Officer to summon persons and require attendance and documents, while Section 40(4) treated the proceeding as a judicial proceeding only for the limited purpose of IPC Sections 193 and 228. The penal provision in Section 56 applied only to contravention of the Act, rules, directions, or orders made under it, so non-compliance with a summons was not covered unless expressly stated. Penal provisions were held to require strict construction, and the prosecution under Section 56 was therefore described as misconceived.

---

---

Issues: Whether failure to appear and produce documents in obedience to a summons issued under Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act amounts to contravention of the Act punishable under Section 56.

Analysis: Section 40 empowered the Enforcement Officer to summon persons and required attendance and production of documents, while Section 40(4) merely deemed the investigation or proceeding to be a judicial proceeding for the limited purpose of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The punitive provision in Section 56 applied only where there was contravention of the Act, any rule, direction, or order made thereunder. Disobedience of a summons was held not to be the same as contravention of the Act, and the penal provision could not be extended to cover such non-compliance. The interpretation of the penal statute was required to be strict, and an unreasonable or expansive construction was rejected.

Conclusion: Failure to obey a summons under Section 40(1) did not constitute a contravention punishable under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 56 was misconceived and the petitioner was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: A penal provision cannot be invoked unless the conduct charged falls fairly and squarely within the plain terms of the enactment; mere disobedience of a summons is not, by itself, a contravention of the statute unless the statute expressly so provides.

---