Case Details First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs Anil Rishiraj & Anr.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

21 September 2023

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 2151 of 2011

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol

Citation

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 421 : 2023 INSC 845

Issue for consideration

Whether the Enforcement Officer appointed under FERA, 1973 continued to have the authority or competence to file a complaint for the offences 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 first respondent, who was an Enforcement Officer appointed under clause (e) of s.3 of FERA, filed a complaint against the appellants for various offences punishable under FERA and s.120-B of IPC – Cognizance taken by the Magistrate – Same was upheld by the High Court – Propriety:

Headnote

Held: The Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) was brought into force with effect 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(1) of s.49 of FEMA, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,1973 (FERA) stood repealed – In the facts of the case, the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate within the sunset period of two years provided under sub-section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 filed by the first respondent, an Enforcement Officer 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 Officers were authorised to file complaints regarding the offences 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(4) of s.49 of FEMA, which provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), all offences committed under the repealed Act shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the repealed Act as if that Act had not been repealed – Sub-section (3) of s.49 saves the prosecution for the offences punishable u/ss. 56 and 57, which have been committed prior to the repeal of FERA, provided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purposes of the prosecution of offences punishable u/ss. 56 and 57 of FERA, by a legal fiction, the provisions of the repealed Act will continue to apply – However, the same will continue to apply only for the purposes of prosecution of the offences which are saved by sub-section (3) of s.49 of FEMA – That is how the complaint filed by the Enforcement Officer, 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 fiction 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

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 effect from 1st June 2000. By virtue of subsection (1) of Section 49 of FEMA, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, ‘FERA’) stood repealed. On 11th February 2002, the first respondent, who was an Enforcement Officer appointed under clause (e) of Section 3 of FERA, filed a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai, against the appellants for various offences pu

View Subscription Plans →