LexSHANTI PRASAD JAIN AND ANOTHER versus DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
Sh.•iir Hussein Bh•lu v. St«te •J M«Urc.slttt« Mudhalk«r,_J, J§li2 October, ~- 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963) SUPP. appellant and that the High Court was in error in setting aside the order of discharge and directing the Chief Presidency Magistrate to proceed on the basis that the complaint was made after following the procedure laid down in ss. 4 76 to s.4 79, Code of Crimi- nal Procedure. Appeal aUowed. SHANTI PRASAD JAIN AND ANOTHER v. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT, FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION AND ANOTHER (B. P. SINHA, c. ]., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH,JJ.) Foreign Exchange-Acquieition by Central Govtrnment- 0ff'1' for sale by owner-If must co1!tr acquisition both before and aftu Notification-When must /Je madr<-l'oreign Exchange Regukition Act, 1947 (7 of 1947), ss .. 9,23-Notification dated March 25, 1947. The , first appellant accompanied by his wife, the second appellant, visited foreign countries on business. He was allowed foreign exchange amounting to 337 and 1410 U. S. dollars, the visit being limited to two months. The second appellant was not allowed any foreign exchage and was allowed to go on the representation that a foreign company would bear all her expenses for the trip. When after three mouths the appellants returned to Delhi, the Customs authoriti~s found on the person of the first appellant travellers cheques of the value of 2590 U.S. dollars. The· Director of Enforcement took the appellant's explanation and on adjudication found that the appellants had received a sum of 3500 U. S. doliars as gift, 'vcre O\Vners of it and contravened s. 9 of the F'oreign Exchange Regulation ;\ct, 1947, read with Notifjcation dated March 2'>., 1947, issued l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 515 thereunder, for failing to offer the foreign exchange for sale as required thereunder within a month of their becoming owners thereof. He, therefore, forfeited the travellers cheques to the extent of 1990 U. S. dollars found with them and imposed a penalty of Rs. 18000 on the first appellant under s. 23 of the Act. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Board which confirmed the order of the Director. Hekl, that s. 9 of the Foreign Regulation Act applied not merely to foreign exchange owned or held at the date the Act came into force but also to foreign exchange acquired after that date. The words "or who may hereafter become the owner of any foregin exchange" h the Notification, therefore, were not ultra vires the section. It must be held that those words were implied in the section and the main purpose of the Notification was to specify what kind of foregin exchange was to be offered for sale thereunder. The Notification was clear that the ,,ffer of sale was to be made within a month of acquisition of ownership of the foreign exchange and not within a month of arrival in India. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 617of1961. Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 27, 1960, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi in Appeal No. 61 of 1960. Sachin CTM:mdhri, N. Bajoria and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellants. Bishan Narain, V. D. 111ahi'Jjan and P. D. Menon, for the respondents. 1962. October 4. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANOHOO, J.-This is an appeal from the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and arises in the following circumstances ; 19i2 Shanti Pr~aJ Ill v. DirlftlT of Enf11c 111lnt. Fflfeip Exchonte Re:ulatW, 1962 Shcnti,Pr"'a' Jain v. Director of Enjoru .. ment, For1ign !xda.ngt Regu/atit1n Wanchoo, J. 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963] SUPP. Appellant No. l went to Europe and the United States of America in connection with business, and his wife, appellant No. 2, accompanied him. The first appellant is the Chairman of Sahu Jain Limited. They left India on June 30, 1958 and visited several countries in Europe including West Germany. Even- tually they reached the United States of America on August 5, 1958. They left the United States on September 22, and arrived at Delhi on October 1, 1958. The first appellant had been allowed foreign exchange amounting to£ 337 (rqual to Rs. 4500/-J and 1410 U.S. Dollars (equal to Rs. 6,750/-). Fur- ther, Messrs. Sahu Jain Limited had been informed that the exchange was sanctioned on condition that the visit was limited to a period of two months. The second a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.