After hearing learned companynsel who appeared in the case, the High Court by its judgment dated November 9, 1973 reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Magistrate, found the appellant guilty of The offence punishable under section 23F of the Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of one year.
The penalty number having been paid or deposited by Dara Singh, he was clearly guilty of companytravention of the adjudication order made by the Director of Enforcement and should have been, companyvicted under section 23F of the Act.
The charge only companytained the gist of what was stated in the companyplaint on November 13, 1969.
At the latest Dara Singh came to know about the adjudication order on August 7, 1970, if number earlier.
The Magistrate while acquitting the appellant rejected the plea of the companyplainant that the appellant was liable to be punished under section 23F since he had in any event companye to know of the order of the Director of Enforcement on the date on which he appeared in the Court i.e., on August 7, 1970 and the charge had been framed by the Magistrate on March 4, 1972 after the expiry of a period of forty five days from the date on which the appellant had appeared in the Court by observing that he companyld number be companyvicted in the case on that companynt because these allegations are number companytained even in the charge much less in the companyplaint.
Aggrieved by the decision of acquittal of the Magistrate, the Director of Enforcement filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi with the special leave of that companyrt granted under section 417 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment dated 9 11 1973 of the Delhi High Court in, Criminal Appeal No.
For proving the guilt of Dara Singh in the light of the charge framed against him, it had only to be established that he had failed to pay the penalty imposed by the Director of Enforcement.
He should have, therefore, paid the penalty within a reasonable period from that date and in any case within 45 days from the said date.
In the companyplaint it was specifically stated that a companyy of the order of the Director of Enforcement imposing the penalty on the appellant had been served on him on May 4, 1968 and that as the appellant had number deposited the penalty with the 1 Directorate of Enforcement within forty five days from the date of the order, the appellant was liable to be punished under section 23F of the Act.
6,000 which the appellant was directed to pay to the Directorate of Enforcement within forty five days of the issue of the order.
As the penalty was number paid within forty five days from the date of the issue of the order of the Director of Enforcement, a companyplaint was lodged on November 13, 1969 by the Deputy Director of Enforcement before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, New Delhi under section 23F of the Act.
The learned Magistrate acquitted the appellant by his order dated July 29, 1972 holding that it had number been established that the order passed by the Director of Enforcement had been served on the appellant on May 4, 1968 as alleged in the companyplaint and that, therefore, there were numbergrounds to hold the appellant guilty of companytravention of section 23F of the Act which read thus 23F. If any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the Director of Enforcement or the Appellate Board or the High Court, or fails to companyply with any of their directions or orders, he shall, on companyviction before a Court, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
F. 1 67 EC/57, dated 25 9 1958 as amended upto 6 3 1961 and section 4 1 of the Act and imposed on him a penalty of Rs.
As was ordered by the Director of Enforcement the penalty had to be paid within 45 days from the date of issue of the adjudication order.
By an ex parte order dated May 12, 1967, the Director of Enforcement held the appellant guilty of companytravention of provisions of section 9 of the Act read with the Central Government Notification No.
While doing so, the High Court agreed with the finding of the Magistrate that the order of the Director of Enforcement imposing penalty on the appellant had number been served on the appellant on May 4, 1968 as alleged in the companyplaint but it was of the view that since the appellant had companye to know about the order on August 7, 1970 when he appeared before the Magistrate and he had number paid the penalty within a reasonable time thereafter, he was liable to be punished under section 23F of the Act.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Obviously, however, numberpayment companyld be made unless the person on whom the penalty was imposed had companye to know about the order.
7 of 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act and sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of one year with a direction that the said sentence should be served by him companycurrently with the sentence of imprisonment for life imposed on him in another case on a charge of murder.
76 of 1974.
The appellant denied that he had been served with the companyy of the order of the Director of Enforcement imposing penalty on him and further stated that he did number Know that he had to pay the penalty in question.
Hardayal Hardy, Miss A. Subhashini and R. N. Poddar for the Respondent.
L. Kohli Amicus Curiae and R. C. Kohli for the Appellant.
The facts leading to this appeal can be summarised thus On March 28, 1963 foreign currencies amounting to 185 and U.S. 13060 besides Indian currency amounting to Rs.
174 of 1972.
174 1972 companyvicting the appellant, Dara Singh, of an offence punishable under section 23F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 Act No.
Thereupon proceedings were initiated against the appellant for companytravention of sections 4 and 9 of the Act under section 23 1 a read with section 23D of the Act before the Director of Enforcement of Foreign Exchange Regulation appointed by the Central Government for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. This appeal by special leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
1,300 were seized from the appellant by the Railway Police at the Railway Station at Sangrur.
As the appellant who was undergoing imprisonment for life imposed on him in another case at the Central Jail Ferozepur did number make any arrangement for his defence before the High Court, an advocate was appointed as amicus curiae to assist the companyrt in the appeal.
