9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeals arising from common adjudication order, abatement of appeal due to death of appellant, criminal proceedings under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, different findings in adjudication and criminal proceedings, penalty imposition under section 68(1) of the Act, acquittal in criminal cases affecting adjudication proceedings, liability of partners in a firm, evidence requirement for imposing penalty on a firm, setting aside of impugned orders, refund of penalty amounts.
Analysis: 1. The judgment deals with three appeals arising from a common adjudication order. One of the appeals abated due to the death of the appellant, as legal representatives were not brought on record. The respondent initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, leading to acquittals and abatement of proceedings based on death. The Foreign Exchange Regulation Board observed that judgments of criminal courts do not act as an estoppel against present proceedings, allowing the appeal proceedings to continue before the Tribunal. 2. The judgment emphasizes the distinction between adjudication and prosecution under the Act. While both avenues are available for offenses, adjudication is quasi-judicial and not bound by criminal proceedings' strict requirements. However, the findings of criminal courts should be considered in adjudication proceedings, especially when based on no evidence of the alleged offense. The judgment highlights the importance of evidence in determining outcomes in both types of proceedings. 3. In the specific case of Appeal No. 641, the penalty was imposed under section 68(1) of the Act on the appellant based on his role in the firm. However, the judgment notes that the appellant's partner, who was acquitted in criminal cases and not actively involved in the firm's affairs, should not be held liable. The lack of evidence linking the partner to the firm's transactions led to setting aside the penalty and directing the refund of the deposited amount. 4. Concerning Appeal No. 105 filed by a firm, the judgment examines the lack of independent evidence connecting the firm to the alleged offenses. Despite statements made and retracted by partners, the seized documents did not establish the firm's involvement in the transactions. The absence of corroboration and evidence led to the impugned order being set aside, and the appeal was allowed with directions for refunding the penalty amount. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders in both appeals, directing the refund of deposited amounts to the appellants. The appeal that abated due to the appellant's death was noted, and the judgment provided a comprehensive analysis of liability, evidence requirements, and the impact of criminal acquittals on adjudication proceedings.
|
