9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is very much within their powers, to impose penalties for non-compliance of provisions of FERA, however, it does not lie within their domain to pronounce a person "guilty" of offences under the FERA Act.
Pronouncing a person "guilty" has serious consequences and to adjudicate and give a finding of 'guilty' lies within the exclusive domain of the competent courts of jurisdiction.
In this view of the matter, the penalty imposed by the Appellant Tribunal for Foreign Exchange on the appellants is upheld, however, the word "guilty" used in the entire order 02.06.2016 against the appellants is to be considered as "redacted". X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the chairman and the Managing Director of SSL. Thereafter, the appellants preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi. 5. On 02.06.2016, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeals and reduced the penalty from Rs. 4 crores to Rs. 1 crore as far as SSL is concerned, and Rs.30 lakhs each as far as the Chairman and Managing Director are concerned. 6. Admittedly, the penalty as imposed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi has been so deposited. 7. Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants only restricts his prayers to the fact that the word "guilty" has been used in paras 37 and 40 of the order dated 02.06.2016, passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Fore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... houdhary, Chairman and appellant S.T. Prasad; Managing Director were the persons who were by virtue of their designations supposed to have been involved in the day to day affairs of the company and must have been in-charge of the conduct of the business and cannot be absolved of their liability on the pretext that P. Mallikarjuna Reddy, Director was looking after the affairs of the company in respect of the disputed transactions. Therefore, the findings of the Adjudicating authority in respect of the said appellant holding them guilty for contraventions under section 8 (3) and 8 (4), of FERA with the aid of section 68 (1) of FERA, 1973, in our view, is legally and factually sound and does not require any interference. ...... 40. The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y para 7 and 19 which reads as under: "7. "Mens-rea" is a state of mind. Under the criminal law, mens-rea is considered as the "guilty intention" and unless it is found that the "accused" had the guilty intention to commit the "crime" he cannot be held "guilty" of committing the crime. An "offence" under Criminal procedure Code and the General clauses Act, 1897 is defined as any act or omission "made punishable by any law for the time being in force". The proceedings Under Section 23 (1) (a) FERA, 1947 are "adjudicator" in nature and character and are not "criminal proceedings". The officers of the Enforcement Directorate and other administrative authorities are expressly empowered by the Act to "adjudicate" only. Indeed they, have to act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bligation by the offender. ....... 19. So far as the amount of penalty is concerned, the appellate Board, as already noticed, has modified the amount of penalty as imposed by the Directorate of Enforcement. The learned Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Tulsi, Submitted that the appellant has no objection to the waiving of the entire amount of penalty in so far as each one of the Directors is concerned, some of whom are reported to have died during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court but that the penalty imposed upon the Company on both the charges does not call for any interference, because of the inordinate delay in repatriation of the foreign exchange, which according to him has not been repatriated even till date as that failure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
