9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (10) TMI 156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Appellant. Hardayal Hardy, Miss. A. Subhashini and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Venkataramiah, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 1972 convicting the appellant, Dara Singh, of an offence punishable under section 23F of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 (Act No. 7 of 1947) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of one year with a direction that the said sentence should be served by him concurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed in him in another case on a charge of murder. The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised thus: On March 28, 1963, foreign currencies amounting to 185 and U.S. $ 13,060 besides Indian currency amounting to Rs. 1,300 were seized from the appellant by the Railway Police at the Railway Station at Sangrur. Thereupon proceedings were initiated against the appellant for contravention of sections 4 and 9 of the Act under section 23(1)( a ) read with section 23D of the Act before the Director of Enforcement of Foreign Exchange Regulation, appointed by the Centr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared in the court, i.e ., on August 7, 1970 and that the charge had been framed by the Magistrate on March 4, 1972, after the expiry of a period of forty-five days from the date on which the appellant had appeared in the court, by observing that " he could not be convicted in the case on that count because these allegations are not contained even in the charge much less in the complaint". Aggrieved by the decision of acquittal of the Magistrate, the Director of Enforcement filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi with the special leave of that court granted under section 417(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As the appellant who was undergoing imprisonment for life imposed on him in another case at the Central Jail, Ferozepur, did not make any arrangement for his defence before the High Court, an advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the court in the appeal. After hearing the learned counsel who appeared in the case, the High Court by its judgment dated November 9, 1973, reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 23F of the Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Act if any person is found to contravene the provisions of section 4, section 9 or any of the other provisions referred to in section 23(1). Section 23D of the Act requires the Director of Enforcement to hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner against any person who is liable to be proceeded against under clause ( a ) of section 23(1) after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard and if on such inquiry, the Director of Enforcement is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention, he may impose such penalty as he thinks fit in accordance with the provisions of section 23 of the Act. An appeal lies to the appellate board under section 23E of the Act against the order, of the Director of Enforcement imposing penalty. Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Rules set out the procedure to be followed by the Director of Enforcement in holding the inquiry under section 23D of the Act. Rule 3 of the Rules among others provides for the issue of a notice to the person against whom proceedings are initiated for contravention of the provisions referred to in section 23(1) of the Act and for giving an opportunity to him to defend himself in the proceedings before the Director o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be imposed on him under section 23F of the Act. It would be wholly unjust to compute the period of limitation to file an appeal from a date earlier than the date on which the party who is entitled to prefer an appeal has the knowledge of the order. In cases where an order which is appealable is not pronounced in the presence of the person against whom it is made, it should be assumed that unless there is any specific provision of law to the contrary the date of his knowledge of the order is the date of the order for the purpose of computing the period of limitation irrespective of the date on which it is actually passed. (Vide Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land Acquisition Officer [1962] 1 SCR 676; AIR 1961 SC 1500). It is equally so even in the case of an order, non-compliance of which would lead to prosecution and consequent imposition of penalty. When the law lays down that non-compliance with an order would expose the person, against whom it is made, to criminal liability, it is reasonable to hold that in the absence of proof of his knowledge of the order no penal action can be taken against him for non-compliance with it. The information or knowledge which he m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as being tried for an offence punishable under section 23 F for non-compliance with the order so communicated on August 7, 1970. The charge only contained the gist of what was stated in the complaint on November 13, 1969. The High Court was, therefore, in error in the circumstances of the case in setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate and in finding the appellant guilty of the offence complained of. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him by the High Court are set aside. The order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate is restored. At the time of granting special leave to appeal in this case, as it was stated that the appellant had been acquitted of the charge of murder, the sentence of imprisonment for life had been cancelled and that he had been undergoing imprisonment awarded by the High Court under section 23F of the Act, this court granted bail to the appellant to the satisfaction of the trial court and directed that he should be released on bail unless he was required to be in prison in connection with or on account of any other case. It is not known whether the appellant was in fact re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
