Personal penal liability under foreign exchange law cannot be imposed on legal representatives absent express statutory provision.

Penal liability under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was held to be personal and could not be fastened on the legal representatives of a deceased sole proprietor in the absence of express statutory language. The court noted that vicarious liability in a penal statute cannot be extended beyond the terms and object of the enactment. A provision dealing with persons in charge of a company was inapplicable because the sons were neither responsible for, nor in control of, the sole proprietorship when the alleged contraventions occurred. Mere succession to the estate did not create liability for the deceased proprietor's alleged breaches, and the penalty order was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the legal representatives of a deceased sole proprietor could be fastened with a penalty under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 for alleged contraventions committed by the deceased in the course of his business, in the absence of an express statutory provision creating such liability.

Analysis: The penalty had been imposed on the sons after the death of their father, who had carried on the business as a sole proprietorship. The reasoning turned on the principle that penal liability is ordinarily personal, and vicarious liability in statutory offences cannot be extended beyond the language and object of the enactment. The Act contained no provision making legal representatives liable for a predecessor's contravention. The provision concerning persons in charge of a company was held inapplicable because the sons were not in control of, or responsible for, the father's sole proprietorship at the relevant time, and succession to the estate did not make them liable for his alleged breaches.

Conclusion: The penalty could not be enforced against the legal representatives, and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---