9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge of release of US $6000 without confiscation, Delay in filing revision petition, Application of judicial discretion, Non-application of mind in adjudication order, Lack of explanation for delay, Interpretation of reasonable time for filing revision petition, Lack of serious illegality or grave injustice in adjudication order. Analysis: 1. The Enforcement Directorate challenged the release of US $6000 to an individual without confiscation, despite penalties imposed for contravention of Foreign Exchange Management Act. The revision petition was filed under section 19(6) of the Act, questioning the delay of 323 days in filing the petition without sufficient explanation for the delay. The issue raised was the exercise of judicial discretion and non-application of mind in the adjudication order, alleging that the order suffered from non-application of mind and lacked appreciation of evidence. 2. The debate centered around the absence of a specific limitation period for filing a revision petition under the Act. The petitioner argued that economic offenses have no limitation, citing a Supreme Court judgment and the legislative scheme. However, the respondent contended that a 45-day limitation under section 19 of the Act should be strictly followed, emphasizing the need for condonation of delay in this case. 3. While the Act does not prescribe a specific time limit for filing a revision petition, it must be done within a reasonable time. The concept of reasonableness was discussed, emphasizing that the delay of about 9 months in this case demonstrated acquiescence or waiver, requiring a sufficient explanation for the delay. The petitioner's argument that a revision petition can be filed at any time was deemed unacceptable, and the necessity of filing within a reasonable period was underscored. 4. The judgment delved into the notion of reasonableness, highlighting that reasonableness varies based on circumstances and must conform to rationality and fairness. The delay of 323 days in filing the revision petition was viewed as a waiver in acquiescence, invoking the principle that the law aids those who are vigilant in asserting their rights. The petitioner's negligent omission in asserting the right was deemed prejudicial to the adverse party, falling under the concept of latches. 5. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's stance on unreasonable delays even in writ jurisdiction, emphasizing that unexplained delays could indicate indifference and waiver. The petitioner's argument of entitlement to file a revision petition at any time was rejected, and the unexplained delay was viewed as a sign of waiver and acquiescence due to prolonged inaction. 6. Despite the delay, it was noted that delay alone cannot be the sole factor in deciding a case, especially when caused by the state's decision-making process. The absence of serious illegality or grave injustice in the adjudication order was highlighted, indicating that the revision petition lacked merit and should be dismissed. The petitioner's casual approach in filing the petition was a significant factor in the decision to reject the revision petition. 7. In conclusion, the revision petition was dismissed due to the lack of merit, delay, and absence of serious illegality or grave injustice in the adjudication order. The judgment emphasized the importance of filing within a reasonable time and demonstrating the seriousness of the issues raised in the petition.
|
