First Global Stockbroking Pvt. vs. Anil Rishiraj, 2023 

CITATION	(2023) 09 SC CK 0041
DATE OF JUDGMENT	21st-September -2023
COURT	Supreme Court
APPELLANT	First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
RESPONDENT	Anil Rishiraj & Anr.
BENCH	Abhay S. Oka, Sanjay Karol

INTRODUCTION 

First Global Stockbroking Pvt. vs. Anil Rishiraj,2023″ is a notable legal criminal case in the  Indian judicial system. The case involves First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. as  appellants, and Anil Rishiraj & Anr. as the respondent. The case is related to legal disputes or  matters involving First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd.& Ors. and individuals represented by  Anil Rishi Raj & Anr.. The year 2023 signifies the year in which the relevant court heard or  decided the case. 

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. The case revolves around the Foreign Exchange Management Act, of 1999 (FEMA),  which came into force on June 1, 2000. This Act repealed the Foreign Exchange  Regulation Act, of 1973 (FERA). 

2. The first respondent, an Enforcement Officer appointed under FERA, filed a complaint  in 2002 against the appellants for various offenses under FERA and Section 120-B of  the Indian Penal Code. 

3. The appellants filed applications for discharge, which were rejected. Their revision  application was also dismissed. They subsequently filed an application under Section  482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC), which was dismissed by the  High Court. 

ISSUE RAISED

1. Whether the writ petition filed was valid? 

CONTENTIONS OF APPELANT 

1. The appellants argued that only officers authorized in writing by the Director of Enforcement  or the Central Government, as per sub-clause (b) of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 61  of FERA, were empowered to file a complaint.  

2. They claimed that the first respondent, who was appointed under clause (e) of Section 3 of  FERA, lost the authority to file such complaints after FERA’s repeal. 

CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT 

1. The respondents argued that sub-section (4) of Section 49 of FEMA provided a complete  answer to the appellants’ submissions.  

2. They contended that Enforcement Officers appointed under FERA continued to have the  authority to file complaints for FERA offenses until the sunset period specified in sub-section  (3) of Section 49 of FEMA expired. 

JUDGEMENT 

1. The Court held that the complaint by the first respondent was valid since it was filed  within the sunset period of two years provided under sub-section (3) of Section 49 of  FEMA. 

2. The legal fiction created by sub-section (4) of Section 49 preserved the applicability of  FERA for the limited purpose of prosecuting offenses saved by sub-section (3) of  Section 49. 

3. The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that officers appointed under sub-clause (b)  of clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 61 of FERA lost the power to file complaints  during the sunset period, as it would render provisions otiose and defeat the legislative  intent.

4. The Court cited a previous decision to emphasize that even after the repeal of an act,  rights accrued, liabilities incurred, and penalties or punishments for acts committed  before the repeal continued to be enforceable. 

5. The appeal was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to prioritize the disposal of  the pending complaint. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court noted the difference in the scheme and penalties between FEMA and FERA,  with FEMA being less stringent. Section 61 of FERA governed the procedure for taking  cognizance of offenses punishable under Sections 56 and 57 of FERA. Complaints for these  offenses could only be filed by authorized officers. Sub-section (4) of Section 49 of FEMA  stated that offenses committed under FERA would continue to be governed by FERA’s  provisions as if FERA had not been repealed, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3).  Sub-section (3) allowed for the prosecution of FERA offenses if cognizance was taken  within two years from the date of FEMA’s commencement. 

In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the complaint filed by the first  respondent under FERA, as it was within the two-year sunset period specified in FEMA’s  Section 49(3). The Court also emphasized that the legal fiction preserved the applicability  of FERA for the purpose of prosecuting saved offenses. 

REFERENCE 

1. https://indiankanoon.org 

2. https://www.courtkutchehry.com/ 

This Article is written by Jaishree Sharma student at Rajasthan University: LLB an intern at  Legal Vidhiya.