FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus ANIL RISHIRAJ & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 421 · Decided: 21-09-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY S. OKA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 421 : 2023 INSC 845
421
CASE DETAILS
FIRST GLOBAL STOCKBROKING PVT. LTD. & ORS.
v.
ANIL RISHIRAJ & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2151 of 2011)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2023
[ABHAY S. OKA AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Enforcement Offi  cer appointed 
under FERA, 1973 continued to have the authority or competence to fi le a 
complaint for the off ences punishable under FERA before the expiry of the 
sunset period provided in sub-section (3) of s.49 of FEMA, 1999.
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 – Foreign Exchange 
Regulation Act, 1973  – On 11.02.2002, the fi rst respondent, who was an 
Enforcement Offi  cer appointed under clause (e) of s.3 of FERA, fi led a 
complaint against the appellants for various off ences punishable under 
FERA and  s.120-B of IPC – Cognizance taken by the Magistrate – Same 
was upheld by the High Court – Propriety:
Held: The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) was 
brought into force with eff ect from 01.06.2000 – By virtue of sub-section 
(1) of s.49 of FEMA, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1973 (FERA) 
stood repealed – In the facts of the case, the cognizance was taken by the 
Magistrate within the sunset period of two years provided under sub-section 
(3) of s.49 of FEMA – The complaint was fi led by the fi rst respondent, an 
Enforcement Offi  cer appointed under clause (e) of s.3 of FERA – The power 
under sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of s.61 was exercised by 
the Central Government and all the Enforcement Offi  cers were authorised to 
fi le complaints regarding the off ences punishable u/ss. 56 and 57 of FERA 
– What is material here is sub-section (4) of s.49 of FEMA, which provides 
that subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), all off ences committed 
422
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
under the repealed Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of 
the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed – Sub-section (3) of 
s.49 saves the prosecution for the off ences punishable u/ss. 56 and 57, which 
have been committed prior to the repeal of FERA, provided the competent 
Court takes its cognizance within two years from the date of coming into 
force of FEMA – In view of sub-section (4) of s.49, for the purposes of 
the prosecution of off ences punishable u/ss. 56 and 57 of FERA, by a legal 
fi ction, the provisions of the repealed Act will continue to apply – However, 
the same will continue to apply only for the purposes of prosecution of the 
off ences which are saved by sub-section (3) of s.49 of FEMA  –  That is 
how the complaint fi led by the Enforcement Offi  cer, duly authorised under 
clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of s.61 of FEMA, will continue to be valid, 
inasmuch as by virtue of the legal fi ction incorporated in sub-section (4) 
of s.49, the prosecution will continue to be governed by the provisions of 
FERA as if the same had not been repealed. [Paras 10 and 11]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
M/s. P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons v. Director of Enforcement 1993 
Supp (2) SCC 724:[1992] 3 SCR 960 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No.2151 of 2011.
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.02.2010 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in CRLA No.1982 of 2008.
Appearances:
Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv., Braj Kishore Mishra, Abhishek Yadav, 
Prastut Dalvi, Ruchit Mohan, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Aman Sharma, 
Ms. Chitragda Rastvara,  Shashwat Anand, Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Shrirang 
B. Varma, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat 
Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Advs. for the Respondents.
423
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (for short, ‘FEMA’) 
was brought into force with eff ect from 1st June 2000.  By virtue of sub-
section (1) of Section 49 of FEMA, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 
1973 (for short, ‘FERA’) stood repealed.  On 11th February 2002, the fi rst 
respondent, who was an Enforcement Offi  cer appointed under clause (e) 
of Section 3 of FERA, fi led a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief 
Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, against the appellants 
for various off ences punishable under FERA and Section 120-B of the 
Indian Penal Code.  Cognizance was taken by the learned Additional 
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 3r

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.