Court upholds jurisdiction in Foreign Exchange Regulation Act case despite accused's residence argument

The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash a complaint under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The accused argued that the complaint should be filed in the High Court of Karnataka due to their residence in Bangalore. However, the court held that the direction to deposit the penalty in the Enforcement Directorate office in Madras gave jurisdiction to the court where the complaint was filed. The court further ruled that recourse to Section 54 of the Act would not assist the petitioners in challenging the court's jurisdiction, ultimately upholding the court's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Section 57 of the Act.

---

---

Issues: Jurisdiction of court to entertain complaint under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973

Analysis:
The judgment in question deals with a petition filed by accused 1 to 8 under Section 482 Cr. P.C. seeking to quash E.O.C.C. No. 355 of 1993 on the grounds of jurisdiction. The complaint alleged contravention of Section 18(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, with a penalty imposed by the Additional Director of Enforcement. The accused failed to pay the penalty within the specified time frame, leading to the offense under Section 57 of the Act. The petitioners argued that since they reside in Bangalore, any appeal should be filed in the High Court of Karnataka, not the court where the complaint was filed. However, the court held that the specific direction to deposit the penalty in the office of the Enforcement Directorate in Madras gave the court below jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

The court further examined Section 54 of the Act, which governs appeals. It was noted that the High Court for appeal purposes is determined based on where the aggrieved party resides, carries on business, or works for gain. Even if an appeal to the High Court is dismissed, the direction in the Adjudication Order to pay the penalty in Madras would stand, making non-compliance an offense under Section 57. Therefore, the court concluded that recourse to Section 54 of the Act would not assist the petitioners in challenging the jurisdiction of the court below. As a result, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint under Section 57 of the Act.

---