UNION OF INDIA versus SUKUMAR PYNE

Citation: [1966] 2 S.C.R. 34 · Decided: 06-10-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

34 
UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
SUKUMAR PYNE 
October 6, 1965 
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (7 of 1947), ss. 23(1) and 23D 
-Amending Act 39 of 1957-Whether violates Arts. 14 and 20 of the 
Constitution-Contravention before amendment-Whether amending Act 
applicab/e--Retrospectivity. 
In 1954 some foreign currency and Travellers Cheques were recovered 
from the respondent's premises. By Act 39 of 1957 the Foreign Exchange 
Regulation Act was amended, s. 23 (I) was substituted and s. 23D was 
added. After the amendment either adjudication proceedings or criminal 
.proceedings could be taken up in respect of a con~ravention mentioned in 
s. 23 (I), while before the amendment only criminal proc-oedings before a 
court could be instituted to punish the offender. The Director of Enforce-
ment in 1958 issued a show cause notice to the respondent why adjudica-
tion proceedings be not held against him for contravention of s. 23 (I) of 
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The re;pondent showed cause, on 
consideration of which the Director of Enforcement concluded that adjudi, 
cation proceedings should be held, and therefore, required the respon-
dent to appear before h'.m. 
Thereupon, tbo respondent filed a petition 
under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the adjudication proceed-
ings on the groullds: (i) s. 23(1) (a) as well as s. 23D contravened Art. 
14 of the Constitution; (ii) the amendment in 1957 did not apply to 
contraventions which took place before it came into force; 
and 
(iii) 
s. 23(l)(a) of the Act was ultra vires of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. 
The High Court upheld the objections and quashed the adjudication pro-
ceedings. In appeal to this Court; 
HELD : 'The appeal must be accepted. 
(i) Section 23(1) and s. 23D of the Act did not violate Art. 14 ·Of 
the Constitution. [3 6 Fl 
Shanti Prasad Jain v. Director of Enforcement, [1963] 2 S.C.R. 217, 
followed. 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
(ii) A person accused of 1he commission of an off·~nce had no vested 
right to be tried by a particular court or a particular procedure except in 
so far as there is any constitutional objection by way of discrimination or 
6 
the \iolation of any other fundamental right is involved, 
There is no 
principle underlying Ar'. 20 of the Constitution which makes a right 
to any course of procedure a vested right. [38 F-H] 
Rao Shiva Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, [1953] S.C.R. 
1188, followed. 
It is not necessary thaot there should be a special provision to indicate 
H 
that the new procedural law is retrospective. 
No right of appeal under 
the Criminal Procedure Code is affected because no proceedings had even 
been starred under the Criminal Procedure Code. [39 A] 
UNION V. SUKUMAR PYNE ( Sikri, J.) 
3$ 
A 
(iii) The new section does not prescribe any ll)inimum. What it pr.es-
cribes is a maximum. 
No greater penalty than might have been levied · 
under the old section has been prescribed by the n·ew section 23(1)(a), 
and conscquenlly there is no breach of Art. 20(1) of the Constitution. 
[39 C-D] 
The words "not exceeding" ins. 23(1) (a) of the Act cover not only 
the expression "three times the value of the foreign exchange" but also 
B 
the words "five thousand rupees." [39 CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 701 
of 
1964. 
""' 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated August 10, 1961 
of the Calcutta High Court in Civil Rule No. 1428 of 1958. 
C 
S. V. Gupte, Solicitor-General, R. Garwpathy Iyer and R. ff. 
Dhebar, for the appellant. 
G. s. Chatterjee and P. K. Chatterjee, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
Sikri, J. 
This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High 
Court of Calcutta under art. 132(1) of the Constitution and is 
• 
directed against the judgment of the High Court accepting a peti-
tion under art. 226 of the Constitution and quashing adjudication 
proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 
E 
(VII of 1947)-hereinafter referred to as the Act. 
The relevant facts are as follows : Following the recovery in 
1954 of some foreign currency and Travellers Cheques at No. 311, 
Bow Bazar Street, Calcutta, where the respJndent alongwith his, 
mother and brother, carried on the business of jewellers, the Direc-
tor of Enforcement issued a notice on April 23, 1958, on the peti~ 
F tioner calling upon him to show cause within 10 days of the

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