1965 (10) TMI 63

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g a petition under art. 226 of the Constitution and quashing adjudication proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947)-hereinafter referred to as the Act. The relevant facts are as follows: Following the recovery in 1954 of some foreign currency and Travelers Cheques at No. 311, Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta, where the respondent alongwith his, mother and brother, carried on the business of jewellers, the Director of Enforcement issued a notice on April 23, 1958,on the petitioner calling upon him to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of the notice why adjudication proceedings should not be. held against him for contravention of s.23(1)of the Act. On May 10, 1958, the respondent replied to the above memoran....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....have retrospective operation in respect of the alleged offence, which took place in 1954, the High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner "had a vested right to be tried by an ordinary court of, the land with such rights of appeal as were open to all", and although s. 23 (1) (a) was procedural, where a vested right was affected, prima facie, it was not a question of procedure. Thea, the High Court came to the conclusion that the provision as to adjudication by the Director of Enforcement could not have any retrospective operation. The learned Judge observed that "the impairment of a right by putting a new restriction thereupon is not :a matter of procedure only. It impairs a substantive right and an enactment which does so is not ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ial by a particular court or by a particular procedure, except in so far as any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or the violation of any other fundamental right may be involved." Before its amendment by Act XXXIX of 1957, s. 23(1) of the Act read as follows : "23(1) Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder shall be punishable with imprisonment or a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both, and any Court trying any such contravention may, if it thinks fit and in addition to any sentence which it may impose for such contravention, direct that any currency, security, gold or silver, or goods or other property in respect of which the contr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hese provisions is that after the amendment of 1957, adjudication proceedings or criminal proceedings could be taken up in respect of a contravention mentioned in s. 23(1) while before the amendment only criminal proceedings before a Court could be instituted to punish the offender. The High Court, as already observed, held that the new amendment did not apply -to contravention which took place before the Act came into force. Mr. Chatterjee, the learned counsel for the respondent, urges that a substantive vested right to be tried by an ordinary court existed before the amendment, and he relied on Maxwell 11 th Edition, p. 217, where it is stated that "the general principle, however, seems to be that alterations in procedure are retrospec....