| 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 This Act repealed the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, of 1973 (FERA).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.
