https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305565 Criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not liable to be quashed merely because the departmental penalty had been set aside. The appellate authority had cancelled the penalty for want of a finding that the petitioner-director was in charge of, or responsible for, the company's business, or had consented to or connived in the contravention; mere directorship was insufficient to attract liability under Section 68. However, the complaint expressly alleged that the directors were responsible for the conduct of the company's business, which was enough to raise an issue for trial. As no conclusive factual finding rendered the prosecution untenable, quashing was refused. en-us Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Dec 2022 15:26:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305565 Criminal prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was not liable to be quashed merely because the departmental penalty had been set aside. The appellate authority had cancelled the penalty for want of a finding that the petitioner-director was in charge of, or responsible for, the company's business, or had consented to or connived in the contravention; mere directorship was insufficient to attract liability under Section 68. However, the complaint expressly alleged that the directors were responsible for the conduct of the company's business, which was enough to raise an issue for trial. As no conclusive factual finding rendered the prosecution untenable, quashing was refused. Case-Laws FEMA Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305565