Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Supreme Court Upholds Legal Continuity of FERA Offences Under FEMA: Sets Precedent for Post-Repeal Prosecution

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has ruled in a landmark judgment that the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), by the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), does not hinder the prosecution of offences previously covered under FERA. The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, has far-reaching implications for cases involving financial irregularities and foreign exchange violations.

The judgment, which underscores the principle of legal continuity, reaffirms that penalties, liabilities, and prosecutions for acts committed under FERA remain valid even after its repeal. Citing Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, the Court made a compelling argument, stating, "What remains to be done, after the Act 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 decision sets a precedent for cases where the FERA provisions are invoked post its repeal by FEMA. The Court emphasized that the legal proceedings for enforcing rights, liabilities, penalties, and forfeitures incurred during FERA's existence are preserved by operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.

Mr. Siddhartha Dave, learned senior counsel representing the appellants, had argued that the repeal of FERA rendered the complaints filed by an Enforcement Officer under FEMA invalid. However, the Court rejected this contention, highlighting that such an interpretation would render the statutory provisions unworkable.

Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General representing the respondents, supported the view that the prosecution for offences under FERA continued to be governed by the provisions of FERA, as preserved by FEMA.

This judgment underscores the importance of maintaining legal consistency and preserving the rights and liabilities of individuals and entities even after the repeal of an Act. It clarifies the legal landscape surrounding the transition from FERA to FEMA, providing clarity to the enforcement authorities and the legal community regarding the prosecution of financial offences committed during FERA's tenure.

Date of Decision: September 21, 2023

First Global Stockbroking Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs nil Rishiraj & Anr.       

       

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/21-Sep-2023_First_global_Stockbroking_Vs_Anil_Rishiraj.pdf"]

Latest Legal News