9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RA were first issued on 15.03.2002. The impugned notices were issued in furtherance of the adjudicatory process giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was only vide the impugned notices dated 26.07.2004 that violation of the FERA by the Petitioners was taken note of. It was on 15.03.2002 that proceedings for violation of the FERA were initiated and such initiation of proceedings is well within the sunset period of two years as mentioned in Section 49(3) of the FEMA. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned notices are valid and proceedings for violation of the FERA against the Petitioners will be governed by the FERA. - HON BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN For the Appellant : P SHIV KUMAR For the Respondent : None ORDER Heard Mr. P. Shiva Kumar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. V. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No. 2. 2. The present writ petition is filed challenging hearing notices in C.No.T-4/2-Bang/2002, C.No.T-4/3-Bang/2002, C.No.T-4/4- Bang/2002 and C.No. T-4/5-Bang/2002 dated 26.07.2004 issued by the Directorate of Enforcement (Respondent No. 2 herein) on the ground that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing contained in any other law for the time being in force, no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the repealed Act and no adjudicating officer shall take notice of any contravention under Section 51 of the repealed Act after the expiry of a period of two years from the date of the commencement of this Act. (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) all offences committed under the repealed Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed. (5) Notwithstanding such repeal, (a) anything done or any action taken or purported to have been done or taken including any rule, notification, inspection, order or notice made or issued or any appointment, confirmation or declaration made or any licence, permission, authorization or exemption granted or any document or instrument executed or any direction given under the Act hereby repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provisions of this Act; (b) any appeal preferred to the Appellate Board under sub-section (2) of Section 52 of the repealed Act but not disposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e file number T-4/2-Bang/2002 that the proceedings were initiated in the year 2002. Further, the Respondents have placed on record the letters dated 24.04.2002 and 30.04.2002 addressed by an advocate on behalf of the Petitioners in reply to the Memo Nos. T-4/2-Bang/2002, T-4/3-Bang/2002, T-4/4-Bang/2002 and T-4/5-Bang/2002 denying the charges against him. Therefore, according to this Court, proceedings against the Petitioners were initiated on 15.03.2002. 13. It is relevant to note that a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Dr. S. Ramakrishna v. Enforcement Directorate 2010 SCC OnLine Del 3503 held that proceedings for violation of the FERA will be deemed to be initiated under Section 49(3) of the FEMA from the date of issuance of show cause notice. The relevant paragraphs are extracted below: 17. We have already referred to the decisions in Bhaskaran Pillai (supra) and Naina Maricair (supra) and we are in agreement with the said view. As the language employed in the Rule deals with various steps and Section 49(3) employs the terms shall take notice of , the period prescribed has to be computed from the date the contravention is taken notice of by the adjudicating officer. If ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed Act, shall be deemed to be have been done under the corresponding provisions of the new Act, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the provisions of the new Act. 8. In the present case, a show cause notice was issued on 18th August, 2000 to the petitioner. The learned Single Judge has held that the show cause notice having been issued to the petitioner on 18 th August, 2000, the same would be within a period of two years from 31st May, 2000, and, therefore, it was held that the appellant petitioner cannot contend that cognizance of the offence has been taken under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. If an offence is committed under the repealed Act, the same would continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act as provided for under Section 49(3) and (4) of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. In that view of the matter, the findings and conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge cannot be said to be in any manner illegal or void. 15. This Court in Mohd. Mustafa Ahmed Alvi v. Union of India 2005 SCC OnLine AP 939 held that proceedings under the FERA can continue if the show cause notices were issued within the two-year period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
