http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: P.V. MOHAMMAD BARMAY SONS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/08/1992

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PANDIAN, S.R. (J)

CITATION:  1993 AIR 1188            1992 SCR  (3) 960  1993 SCC  Supl.  (2) 724 JT 1992 (4)   565  1992 SCALE  (2)227

ACT:      Foreign Exchange  Regulation  Act  7  of  1947-Sections 5(1)(a),  (b) and 23(1) read with Sections 9(1)(a), (c)  and 50  of  the  Foreign Exchange Regulation  Act  46  of  1973- Comparative  study-Language,  penalty  and   contraventions- Whether differ.      Foreign  Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 1973-Section  81 read with Section 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act-Repeal of the  Foreign  Exchange  Regulation  Act  7  of   1947-Rights acquired  or  accrued,  penalty,  liability,  forfeiture  or punishment incurred whether kept alive.      Foreign  Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 1973-Section  81 read  with  Section 6(e) of the  General  Clauses  Act-Legal proceeding  for  enforcing a right acquired  or  accrued  or liability,  penalty,  forfeiture,  punishment  incurred  and legal proceedings for acquisition of a right-Distinction.      Foreign  Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 1973-Section  81 read with section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act-Acts done, penalties,  forfeiture  or punishment  incurred  before  the Repealed  Act  7  of 1947, though no  proceedings  initiated there-under-Whether  attracts  Section  6  of  the   General Clauses  Act-Legislative  intention  of  Act  46  of   1973- Appreciation-Court’s duty.      Foreign  Exchange  Regulation Act 46  of  1973-Sections 9(1)(a), (c) and 50 read with Section 5(1)(a), (b) and 23 of the  Foreign  Exchange  Regulation  Act  7  of  1947-Penalty imposed-Legality  of-Doctrine  of double  jeopardy,  Whether applicable.

HEADNOTE:      The  appellant-firm owned three vessels and carried  on export  of timber, coir etc. to Gulf countries and  imported Emuphraez Zabdi Dates on return.      Out  of  the amounts payable in  Pounds  deducting  the price  for dates, the appellant had fitted 230 H.P.  Gardner engine (second hand) to its first vessel and 240 H.P. Kalvin engine (second hand) to its second vessel.  The                                                        961 second-hand engines were purchased at the cost of Rs. 50,000 and  Rs.  55,000 respectively .  Out of the  amount  payable through  Nakoda  in Basrah , a sum of Rs. 30,000  was  paid.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

For the third vessel an agreement was entered into to fit in a second hand engine with one M/s. Mohd. Zasim of Kuwait  at a price of 2,100 Kuwaiti Dinars and payable in three  annual instalments.      On  4.10.1974, a raid conducted on the premises of  the appellant  by the respondent and it was discovered that  the appellant  contravened  Secs.  5(1)(a) and  5(1)(b)  of  the Foreign  Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.  In  consequence  of discovery  a notice was issued on 11.10.1974 and not  having been  satisfied with the explanations, a  show-cause  notice was issued.  An explanation was given by the appellant.  The Addl. Director, Enforcement Directorate in the  proceedings, found  that the appellant had purchased two engines and  got fitted  to  two  motor vessels and agreement  to  the  third engine  was also concluded without obtaining the  permission of  the  Reserve Bank of India and that  the  appellant  was found to have committed the contravention of Sec.  5(1)(a) & (b) and penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed on 5.7.1977.      On appeal, the Appellate Board confirmed the penalties, reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 37,500.      The appellant filed this appeal by special leave  under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India challenging the  order of the Appellate Board.      The  appellant  contended  that  the  Foreign  Exchange Regulation  Act  7  of  1947 was  repealed  by  the  Foreign Exchange  Regulation  Act 46 of 1973;  that  no  action  was taken under the repealed Act before the Act 46 of 1973  came into  force  on  19.9.1973 and, therefore,  the  action  was without   jurisdiction  and  authority  of  law;  that   the proceedings  against the appellant was taken under  the  Sea Customs Act, 1922  and the adjudicating authority imposed  a penalty of Rs. 4,30,000 and on Appeal, the Central Board  of Excise and Customs set aside the penalty; that for the  same offence  no  proceedings under the Act 46 of 1973  could  be taken; that the finding was based on no evidence, since  the respondent  did  not prove the offence  under  the  repealed Foreign  Exchange  Regulation  Act, 1947 Act  or  under  the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.      The respondent submitted that in view of Sec. 81 (2) of the Foreign                                                        962 Exchange  Regulation  Act,  1973 read with  Sec.  6  of  the General  Clauses  Act,  the  power  of  the  respondent   to investigate  and enforce the liability or  penalty  incurred under  the Repealed Act was saved, though the Act 7 of  1947 was repealed under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 81 of the Act.      Dismissing the appeal, this court      HELD : 1, A comparative study of the provisions of  the repealed Foreign Exchange  Regulation Act 7 of 1947 and  the Foreign   Exchange  Regulation  Act  46  of   1973   clearly adumberated that save as may be provided in accordance  with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-section,   which   may  be  granted   conditionally   or unconditionally  by  the Reserve Bank of  India,  no  person resident  in or outside  India shall make any payment to  or for the credit of any persons residents outside India  draw, issue, negotiate any bill of exchange or promissory note  or acknowledge  any  debt  so that a right  whether  actual  or contingent to receive a payment is created or transferred in favour   of  any  persons  resident  outside  India,  is   a contravention  of the Repealed Act 7 of 1947 and the Act  46 of  1973,  as  well such person is  liable  to  the  penalty prescribed under the respective provisions.  Three times the value  was the  penalty prescribed  under the  Repealed  Act and five times the value has been prescribed under the  Act.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Except  this difference, there is no difference  as  regards the  language, in nature of penalty and  contraventions  are concerned.  [967 D,E,F]      2.01.   The effect of the Repealed Act of 7 of 1947  by operation of clause (e) of Sec. 6 of the General Clause  Act read with sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 81 is that though the Act  46 of 1973 obliterates the operation of Act 7 of 1947,  despite its   repeal,   the  penalty,   liability,   forfeiture   or prosecution  for  acts done while the repealed  Act  was  in force were kept alive, though no action thereunder was taken when the Repealed Act was in force. [968-G]      2.02.    The   rights  acquired  or  accrued   or   the liabilities   incurred   or  any  penalty,   forfeiture   or punishment incurred during the operation of the Repealed Act are  kept  alive.  Investigations to be made or  any  remedy which may have been available before the repeal be  enforced are  also  preserved.  Such  rights,  liabilities,  penalty, forefeiture or punishment, due to repeal  "shall not lapse". The saving clause, thus, aimed to preserve the legal  effect and  consequences  of things done though those  affects  and consequences projected to post repealed period. [968-H-969A]                                                        963      2.03.  The things done adumberated in Sec. 81(2) of the Act  46  of  1973 or Sec. 6 of the  General  Clause  Act  or penalty  or  punishment  incurred would  envisage  that  the things  already done or liabilities, penalty, punishment  or forfeiture  incurred, though happened before  the Act 46  of 1973  came  into  force, Sec. 81(2) of the Act  43  of  1973 empowers  to effectuate the liabilities, penalties, etc.  as if  they have been in existence and amenable to  be  pursued under the Act 46 of 1973 or under the Repealed Act 7 of 1947 by  operation  of Sec. 6 of General Clauses  Act.   What  is unaffected  by the repeal of the Act  7 of 1947 is  a  right accrued, etc. [969-C]      3.   There is a distinction between a legal  proceeding for  enforcing  a right acquired or  accrued  or  liability, penalty,  forfeiture,  punishment  incurred  and  the  legal proceedings for acquisition of a right, the former is  saved whereas  the later is not.  In spite of repeal the right  to investigation or to take legal proceedings remain unaffected and  preserved as if the old Act continues to be  operative. [969-D]      4.01.   What  remains to be done, after the Act  46  of 1973  came into force, is the quantification,  if  necessary after due investigation and legal proceedings and if  proved to impose the penalty, forfeiture or punishment.  The  Court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender or  the acts done.  What the court is to enquire into is whether the Act  is  incompatible with the Repealed Act and  whether  it manifested  any  contrary  intention to  the  Repealed  Act. Unless a different intention has been manifested in the Act, the Repealed Act would continue to be operative.  Even in  a case  of bare repeal accompanied by a fresh  legislation  on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act will have to be  looked  into  to find where and  how  far  the  new  Act envisages  a contrary intention affecting the  operation  of Sec.  6  of the General Clauses Act.  Unless  such  contrary intention is manifested, liabilities, penalties,  forfeiture or punishment under the Repealed Act will continue to  exist and  remain in force by operation of Sec. 6 of  the  General Clauses Act. [969-E-F]      4.02.   The Act 46 of 1973 did not evince any  contrary intention.   It merely reiterated the earlier law  operating the  feld.  Therefore, Clauses(d) of  Sec.6 of  the  General Clauses Act gets attracted to the acts done or the penalties

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

incurred  or  forfeiture  or  punishment  had  already  been committed before the repealed enactment, though no  criminal proceedings  have  been actually  initiated  under  repealed enactment before its repeal.                                                [969-H-970-A]                                                        964      5.01.   The  Repealed Act prescribed  three  times  the value  as  penalty  and  under the Act  43  of  1973  Sec.50 provides five times penalty.  So what would be impossible as penalty  is three times.  the penalty imposed as reduced  by the   appellate  Tribunal  is  even  not  three  times,   as contemplated under Sec. 23 of the Repealed Act.   Therefore, though  the Act 43 of 1973, evinced a contrary intention  of imposition  of higher penalty than one prescribed under  the Act  7  of  1947, on the facts in  this  case,  the  penalty imposed is perfectly valid and legal.  [970-D]      5.02.   The mere fact that the penalty proceedings  for evasion  of  the  excise duty had ended  in  favour  of  the appellant,  does  not  take away  the  jurisdiction  of  the enforcement authorities under the Act to impose the  penalty in  question.   The  doctrine of  double  jeopardy  has  not application.                                                    [970-F-H]      5.03.  Since there was no express permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India for the payments by the  appellant to  the agent outside  India, the contravention  was  proved and  penalty  was  imposed.  It is the  penalty  under  Sec. 5(1)(a)  & (b) of the Repealed Act equivalent to  sec.9  (1) (a)  &  (c) of the Act.  Therefore, the penalty  imposed  is based on material, valid reasons and proper findings.  [971- A-B]      O. Abdul Aziz & Ors. v. Addl. Director of  Enforcement, AIR  1983  Madras  59;  A.K.L.  Labbai  Thamdi  Maraicar  v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors., AIR 1983 Madras 102;  Tiwari Kanhaiyalal  &  Ors. v. Commissioner of  Income-tax,  Delhi, [1975 4 SCC 101 and The Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.  v. M/s Shah Sadiq & Sons, [1987] 3 SCC 516 at 524, referred to.

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal  No. 95 of 1981.      From  the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1978   of  the Foreign  Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New  Delhi  in Appeal No. 112 of 1977.      S.P. Singh and Sunil Kr. Singh for the Appellants.      K.T.S.   Tulsi,   Addl.  Solicitor   General,   Ms.   A Subhashini,  Ms.  A.  Kripal and  Kailash   Vasdev  for  the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                                                        965      K.  RAMASWAMY, J. A short but interesting  question  of law had arisen in this case.  The appellant is a firm  which owned  three vessels, by name M.V. Fathel Beir, M.V.  Fathel Rehman and M.V. Saad Salam.  It carries on export of timber, coir  etc.  to Gulf countries and  imported  Euphraez  Zabdi Dates  on  return.  Out of the  amounts  payable  in  Pounds deducting the price for dates, the appellant had fitted  230 H.P.   Gardner   engine  (second  hand)  to   their   vessel Fatherlbari  and  240 H.P. Kalvin engine  (second  hand)  to their  vessel  Fazther Rehman, which were purchases  at  the cost of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 55,000 respectively.  Out of  the amount payable through Nakoda in Basrah, a sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid.  For the third vessel Saad Salam an agreement  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

entered  into to fit in a second hand engine with M/s  Mohd. Zasim  of  Kuwait  at a price of  2,100  Kuwati  Dinars  and payable in three annual installments.  The Addl.   Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras adjudicated the  proceedings against  the  appellant  and found that  the  appellant  had purchased  two  engines and got them fitted into  two  motor vessels and agreement to the third engine was also concluded without  obtaining  the permission of the  Reserve  Bank  of India.  Thereby it contravened Secs. 5(1)(a) and 5(1)(b)  of the  Foreign  Exchange  Regulation Act of  1947,  for  short ‘Repealed   Act’,    In   this   behalf   admittedly    this contravention  was  discovered on a raid  conducted  on  the premises   of  the  appellant  on  October  4,   1974.    In consequence of discovery a notice was issued on October  11, 1974 and not having been satisfied with the explanations,  a show-cause  notice  was  issued  on  October  18,  1975   an explanation  was given by the appellant and he was found  to have  committed the contravention of Sec. 5(1)(a) & (b)  and penalty  was imposed on July 5, 1977.  On appeal,  while  by order  dated October 17,1978, the Appellate Board  confirmed the  penalties, reduced the penalty from Rs. 50,000  to  Rs. 37,500.   Questioning  the legality  thereof  the  appellant filed  this  appeal by special leave under Art. 136  of  the Constitution of India.      Two main contentions have been raised by the appellant. The first contention is that the Act 7 of 1947 was  repealed by  Foreign  Exchange Regulation Act, 46 of 1973  for  short ‘the  Act’.   No  action was taken under  the  repealed  Act before  the Act came into force on September, 19,1973.   The impugned  action,  therefore, is  without  jurisdiction  and authority of law.  It is also contended that the proceedings against the appellant was taken under the Customs Act,  1962 and  the  adjudicating authority imposed a  penalty  of  Rs. 4,30,000.   On  Appeal,  the Central  Board  of  Excise  and Customs  by  order  dated  August 19,  1975  set  aside  the penalty.  For the same offence no proceedings under the  Act could be taken.  It is also contended                                                        966 that  the  finding  is  based  on  no  evidence,  since  the respondents did not prove the offence under the Repealed Act or under the Act.      Section 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Repealed Act reads thus:          "5(1) - Save as may be provided in an in accordance          with  any  general or special  exemption  from  the          provisions of this sub-section which may be granted          conditionally  or  unconditionally by  the  Reserve          Bank, no person in or resident in, (India) shall-          (a) - make any payment to or for the credit of  any          person resident outside India.                          xxx      xxx     xxx          (b)  draw, issue or negotiate any bill of  exchange          or promissory note or acknowledge any debt, so that          a right (whether actual or contingent) to receive a          payment is created or transferred in favour of  any          person resident outside India."      Section 9(1)(a) and (c) of the 1973 Act provide thus:          "9(1)  Save as may be provided in and in accordance          with  any  general or special  exemption  from  the          provisions of this sub-section which may be granted          conditionally  or  unconditionally by  the  Reserve          Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall-          (a) - make any payment to or for the credit of  any          person resident outside India:                          xxx     xxx     xxx          (c) - draw, issue or negotiate any bill of exchange

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

        or promissory note or acknowledge any debt, so that          a right (whether actual or contingent) to receive a          payment is created or transferred in favour of  any          person resident outside India."      Section  23(1) of the Repealed Act  prescribes  penalty thus :               "No  person shall enter into any  contract  or               agreement  which would directly or  indirectly               evade or avoid in any way  the                                                        967               operation of any provisions of this Act or  of               any rule, direction or order made thereunder."      Section 50 of the Act provides penalty thus :          "If any person contravenes any of the provisions of          this  Act (other than Sec. 13, clause (a)  of  sub-          section (1) Sec. 18 and  clause (a) of  sub-section          (1)  of Sec. 19)or of any rule, direction or  order          made thereunder, he shall be liable to such penalty          not  exceeding five times the amount of  the  value          involved in any such contravention or five thousand          rupees,  whichever is more, as may be  adjudged  by          the Director of Enforcement or any other officer of          Enforcement  not  below  the  rank  of  an   Asstt.          Director  of  Enforcement specially   empowered  in          this  behalf  by order of the  Central  Govt.   (in          either   case  hereinafter  referred  to   as   the          adjudicating officer)."               A comparative study of these provisions of the          Repealed  Act and the Act clearly adumberated  that          save  as  may be provided in  accordance  with  any          general or special exemption from the provisions of          this    sub-section,   which   may    be    granted          conditionally  or  unconditionally by  the  Reserve          Bank  of  India, no person resident in  or  outside          India  shall make any payment to or for the  credit          of any persons residents outside India draw, issue,          negotiate any bill of exchange or promissory not or          acknowledge any debt so that a right whether actual          or  contingent to receive a payment is  created  or          transferred  in  favour  of  any  persons  resident          outside  India, is a contravention of the  Repealed          Act  and the Act as well and such person is  liable          to  the  penalty prescribed  under  the  respective          provisions.  Three times the value  was the penalty          prescribed  under the Repealed Act and  five  times          the  value  has  been  prescribed  under  the  Act.          Except  this difference, there is no difference  as          regards   the  language,  nature  of  penalty   and          contraventions  are concerned.  Section 81  of  the          Act repeals and saves thus :          "Repeal  and  saving  - (1)  The  foreign  Exchange          Regulation  Act,  1947  (7  of  1947),  is   hereby          repealed.          (2)  "anything done"..........under the Act  hereby          repealed shall, in so far as it is not inconsistent          with the provisions of this act, be deemed to  have          been done or taken under the                                                        968          corresponding provisions of this Act."      Section 6 of the  General Clause Act, 1897 provides the effect of repeal thus :          "Where  this Act or any Central Act  or  Regulation          made after the commencement of this act repeals any          enactment  hitherto made or hereafter to  be  made,          then,  unless  a different intention  appears,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

        repeal shall not -                          xxx    xxx    xxx          (e)  affect any investigation, legal proceeding  or          remedy  in  respect of any such  right,  privilege,          obligation,   liability,  penalty,  forfeiture   or          punishment.......          and  any  such investigation, legal  proceeding  or          remedy  may be instituted, continued  or  enforced,          and  any such penalty,forfeiture or punishment  may          be  imposed as if the Repealing Act  or  Regulation          had not been passed."      Sri Tulsi, the learned Addl. Solicitor General  placing reliance  in  O.  Abdul Aziz & Ors.  v.  Addl.  Director  of Enforcement,  AIR  1983 Madras 59 and A.K.L.  Labbai  Thambi Maraicar v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors., AIR 1983  Madras 102,  contended that in view of Sec. 81(2) of the  Act  read with  Sec.  6 of the General Clause Act, the  power  of  the respondents  to  investigate and enforce  the  liability  or penalty incurred under the Repealed Act is saved, though the Act  7 of 1947 has been repealed under sub-sec. (2) of  Sec. 81  of  the Act 7 of 1947 has been repealed  under  sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 81 of the Act. The contention of the  respondent is that the Repealed Act, after the Act had come into  force in 1973, is a dead corpse and no life into it could be blown with  the  aid  of Sec. 81(20 of the Act or Sec.  6  of  the General  Clause  Act read with Sub-sec. (2) of  sec.  81  is that,  though the Act obliterates the operation of Act 7  of 1947, despite its repeal, the penalty, liability, forfeiture or  prosecution for acts done while the repealed Act was  in force were kept alive, though no action thereunder was taken when the Repealed Act was in force.  The rights acquired  or accrued   or  the  liabilities  incurred  or  any   penalty, forfeiture  or punishment incurred during its operation  are kept alive.  Investigations to be made or any remedy                                                        969 which may have been available before the repeal be  enforced are  also  preserved.  Such  rights,  liabilities,  penalty, forefeiture or punishment, due to repeal "shall not  lapse". The saving clause, thus, aimed to preserve the legal  effect and  consequences  of things done though those  effects  and consequences projected to post repealed period.  The  things done  adumberated in  Sec. 81(2) or Sec. 6  of  the  General Clause Act or penalty or punishment incurred would  envisage that  the  things  already  done  or  liabilities,  penalty, punishment  or forfeiture incurred, though  happened  before the  Act came into force, Sec. 81(2) of the Act empowers  to effectuate the liabilities, penalties, etc. as if they  have been  in existence and amenable to be pursued under the  Act or under the Repealed Act by operation of Sec. 6 of  General Clauses Act.  What is unaffected by the repeal of the Act  7 of  1947  is a right accrued, etc.  There is  a  distinction between a legal proceeding for enforcing a right acquired or accrued  or  liability,  penalty,  forefeiture,   punishment incurred  and  the legal proceedings for  acquisition  of  a right,  the  former is saved whereas the later is  not.   In spite of repeal the right to investigation or to take  legal proceedings  remain unaffected and preserved as if  the  old Act  continues  to be operative.  What remains to  be  done, after  the  Act came into force, is the  quantification,  if necessary after the investigation and legal proceedings  and if  proved to impose the penalty, forfeiture or  punishment. The  Court  takes  cognizance  of the  offence and  not  the offender  or  the acts done.  What the court is  to  enquire into  is whether the Act is incompatible with  the  Repealed Act and whether it manifested any contrary intentions to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

Repealed  Act.   Unless  a  different  intention  was   been manifested in the Act, the Repealed Act would continue to be operative.   Even in a case of bare repeal accompanied by  a fresh  legislation  on the same subject, the  provisions  of the  new Act will have to be looked into to find  where  and how far the new Act envisages a contrary intention affecting the operation of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act.   Unless such   contrary   intention  is   manifested,   liabilities, penalties, forfeiture  or punishment under the Repealed  Act will  continue to exist and remain in force by operation  of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act.      We  have already seen that the Act did not  evince  any contrary  intention.  It merely reiterated the  earlier  law operating in the field.  Therefore, clause (d) of Sec. 6  of the General Clauses Act gets attracted to the acts  done  or the  penalties of forfeiture or punishment for  any offaence which  had  already  been  committed  before  the   repelled enactment, though no criminal proceedings have been actually initiated under repealed enact-                                                        970 ment before its repeal.      In Tiwari Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income- tax,  Delhi,  [1975] 4 SCC 101 where  prosecution  was  laid after   the  repeal  of  the  Income-tax  Act,  1992,    the contention  raised  was that saving clauses in Sec.  297  of 1961  Income-Tax  Act did not save the  punishment  incurred under  the Repealed Act.  Therefore, recourse to Sec.  6  of General  Clauses  Act cannot be had, was negatived  by  this Court  and  held  that  the  repeal  had  not  effected  the liability incurred under Sec. 52 of the Income-tax Act  1922 and  it continued even after its repeal.  The same view  was reiterated  in the Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P.  v.  M/s Shah  Sadiq & Sons., [1987] 3 SCC 516 at 524.   Accordingly, we hold that despite repeal of Act 7 of 1947 by operation of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act read with Sec. 81(2),  the penalty  incurred by the appellant contained to subsist  and the  respondents are entitled to institute  the  proceedings, conduct investigation or enquiry and impose such penalty.      Article  20(1)  of the Constitution of  India  provides that no person shall be convicted of any offence except  for violation  of the law in force at the time of commission  of the Act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under  the law in force at the time of commission of the offence.   The Repealed Act prescribed three times the value as penalty and under the Act Sec. 50 provides five times penalty.  So  what would be imposeable as penalty is three times.  The  penalty imposed  as reduced by the appellate Tribunal is  even   not three  times as contemplated under Sec. 23 of  the  Repealed Act.  Therefore, though the Act evinced a contrary intention of  imposition of higher penalty than one  prescribed  under the  Act 7 of 1947, on the facts in this case,  the  penalty imposed is perfectly valid and legal.      The further contention that under the Customs Act  1962 for  the  self same contravention, the  penalty  proceedings terminated in favour of the appellant, is of little avail to the  appellant for the reason that the two Acts  operate  in different  fields,  one for Contravention of  FERA  and  the second for evasion of customs duty.  The mere fact that  the penalty  proceedings  for evasion of the  customs  duty  had ended  in  favour of the appellant, does not take  away  the jurisdiction of the enforcement authorities under the Act to impose  the  penalty in question.  The  doctrine  of  double Jeopardy has no                                                        971

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

application.   The  further contention that the  offence  is based on no evidence is devoid of any substance.  Notice was given   to   the  appellant.   In  the   show-cause   notice contravention was brought to its notice.  The appellant gave the  explanation.   After consideration of the  facts  since there was no express permission granted by the Reserve  Bank of  India  for the payments by the appellant  to  the  agent outside India, the contravention was proved and penalty  was imposed.  It is the penalty under Sec. 5(1) (a) & (b) of the Repealed  Act  equivalent  to  Sec.  9(1)(a)  of  the   Act. Therefore,  the penalty imposed is based on material,  valid reasons and proper findings.      Accordingly we do not find any merit to interfere  with the  order.  The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but  under the circumstances the parties are directed to bear their own costs. V.P.R.                                     Appeal dismissed.                                                        972