1997 (12) TMI 535 - HC - Companies Law

Appeals to Appellate Board, Penalty for contravention of order made by adjudicating officer, etc.

Summary

Issues:
- Petition for stay of further proceedings in criminal prosecutions pending disposal of appeals before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board.
- Request for quashing criminal proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Grounds for seeking stay based on pending appeals and potential impact on prosecutions.
- Interpretation of rights of appeal and launching prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act.
- Application of judicial discretion in adjourning or postponing criminal proceedings.

Analysis:
The judgment concerns petitions seeking a stay on criminal proceedings pending the disposal of appeals before the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board. The petitioners had been imposed with penalties, which they failed to pay, leading to the initiation of complaints under section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Despite attempts to stall proceedings through writ petitions and quashing applications, the trial court had ordered the commencement of trial. The petitioners argued that the pending appeals could render the criminal prosecutions infructuous if trials proceed. However, the court noted that the mere pendency of appeals does not warrant a stay in criminal proceedings.

The court highlighted the need to harmoniously construe the rights of appeal under section 52 of the Act and the authority to launch prosecutions under section 57. Citing a Division Bench judgment, the court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of appeals by the Appellate Board. The petitioners were advised to request early disposal of their appeals to potentially impact the ongoing criminal prosecutions. The court also referenced another observation by the Division Bench, indicating that criminal courts have the discretion to adjourn proceedings if related matters are imminent, without compromising the object of the criminal proceedings.

In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the continuance of the criminal prosecutions need not be stalled due to the pendency of appeals before the Appellate Board. The grounds for seeking a stay based on the pending appeals were deemed insufficient, leading to the dismissal of the petitions seeking a stay of proceedings. The court emphasized the need for the petitioners to address the appeals before the Appellate Board promptly to potentially impact the ongoing criminal prosecutions.