Holding

Liability, penalty and enforcement powers under the repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 are saved by Section 81(2) of the 1973 Act read with Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, rendering the imposed penalty valid.

Summary

The firm P.V. Mohammad Barmay Sons owned three vessels and, without Reserve Bank of India permission, purchased and fitted foreign engines, contravening Sections 5(1)(a) and (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. A raid in 1974 led to a notice, show‑cause proceedings and a penalty of Rs 50,000 imposed under the 1947 Act, later reduced to Rs 37,500 by the Appellate Board. The firm appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the 1947 Act had been repealed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and that no jurisdiction existed to enforce the penalty, and also raising double‑jeopardy and penalty‑calculation issues. The Court examined the effect of the repeal, the saving provision in Section 81(2) of the 1973 Act read with Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, and held that liabilities, penalties and enforcement powers accrued before repeal are preserved. It further held that the penalty, though reduced, was valid and that the doctrine of double jeopardy did not apply. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the repeal of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 by the 1973 Act extinguishes liability for offences committed before the repeal.
Whether Section 81(2) of the 1973 Act and Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act save the liability, penalty and enforcement powers of the repealed Act.
Whether the doctrine of double jeopardy bars the imposition of a penalty under the repealed Act after proceedings under other statutes.
Whether the penalty should be calculated on the basis of the three‑times multiplier under the 1947 Act or the five‑times multiplier under the 1973 Act.
Whether the enforcement authority had jurisdiction to impose the penalty despite the earlier customs penalty being set aside.

Legislation cited

Customs Act, 1962
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947s. 23(1), s. 5(1)(a), s. 5(1)(b)
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973s. 50, s. 81(2), s. 9(1)(a), s. 9(1)(c)
General Clauses Act, 1897s. 6(e)
Sea Customs Act, 1922

Subjects

Foreign Exchange Regulation Actrepealsaving clauseGeneral Clauses Actpenaltydouble jeopardyReserve Bank of India permissionenforcement authoritycontravention

Judgment

A P.V. MOHAMMAD BARMAY SONS
v. >-
DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

AUGUST 20, 1992

B . [S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 7 of 1947-Sections 5(1)(a), (b) and
23(1) read with Sections 9(1)(a), (c) and 50of the Foreign Exchange Regula-
tion Act 46 of 1973-Comparative study-Language, penalty and contraven-
c lions-Whether differ.

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Section 81 read with
Section 6 (e) of the General Clauses Act--R.epeal of the Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act 7 of 1947-Rights acquired or accrued, penalty, liability,
forfeiture or punishment incurred whether kept alive. -t
D
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Section 81 read with
Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act-Legal proceeding for enforcing a
right acquired or accured or liability, penalty, fore/eiture, punishment incurred
and legal proceedings for acquisition of a right-Distinction.

E Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-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 proceed-
ings initiated there-unde~Whether attracts Section 6 of the General Clauses
Act-Legislative intention of Act 46 of 197:7-Appretiation-Court's duty.
F Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46 of 197:7-Sections 9(1)(a),(c) and
50 read with Sections 5(1)(a), (b) and 23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation y.
Act 7 of 1947-Penalty imposed-Legality of-Doctrine of double jeopardi,
Whether applicable.

The appellant-firm owned three vessels and carried on export of
G
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 its first
H vessel and 240 H.P.Kalvin engine (second hand) to its second vessel. The
960
P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR 961

-{ second-hand engines were purchased at the cost of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. A
SS,000 respectively. Out of the amount payable through Nakoda in Basrah,
a sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid. 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 Kuwati Dinars and payable in three annual
instalments.
B
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.
~ S(l)(a) and S(l)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. In
consequence of discovery a notice was issu~d on 11.10.1974 and not having
been satisfied with the explanations, a show-cause notice was issued. An c
explanation was given by the appellant. The Addi. 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
-t- Bank of India and that the appellant was found to have committed the
contravention of Sec. 5(l)(a) & (b) and penalty of Rs. 50,000 was imposed D
on S.7.1977.

On appeal, the Appellate Board confirmed the penalties, reduced
the penalty from Rs. S0,000 to Rs. 37,500.

'f' The appellant filed this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the
E
Constitution of India challenging the order of the Appellate Board.

-=- The appellant contended that the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
7of1947 was repealed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 46of1973; I'
I
that no action was taken under the repealed Act before the Act 46 of 1973 F
came into force on 19.9.1973 and, therefore, the action was without juris-
¥ diction 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. 4,30.006 and on Appeal, the Central
Board of Excise and Customs set aside the penalty; that for the same
offence no proceMiQg$ under the Act 46 of 1973 could be taken; that the
b
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 H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A 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
penaity 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
B
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
C 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
D any persons residebt 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. Except this difference, there is no dif-
E ference 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
F 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 y
action thereunder was taken when the Repealed Act was in forct:. (968-GJ

2.02. ~e rights acquired or accrued or the liabilities incurred or
G 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
H consequences projected to post repealed period. [968-H-969A]
P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR [RAMASWAMY, J.] 963 I •

2.03. The things done adumberated in Sec. 81(2) of the Act 46 of 'A
---( 197l or Sec. 6 of the General Clause Act or penalty or punishment incurTed
would envisage that the things already done or liabilities, penalty, punish-
ment 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 ' B
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 1

right acquired or accrued or liability, penalty, forfeiture, punishment .C
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 :D
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 ' E
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 sam~ 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 F
manifested, liabilities, penalUes, 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 field. Therefore, Clause{d) G
of Sec.6 of the General Clauses Act gets attracted to the acts done or the
penalties incurred or forfeiture or punishment had already been com-
mitted before the repealed enactment, though no criminal proceedings ,
have been actually initiated under repealed enactment before its repeal.
[969-H-970-A] H
,;.

964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] 3 S.C.R.

A 5.01. The Repealed Act prescribed three times the value as penalty
and under the Act 43 of 1973 Sec.SO provides five times penalty. So what ,'r-
would be imposeable as penalty is three times. The penalty imposed as
reduced by the appellate Tribunal is even not three tilnes, 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
B 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, d~s not take away the
c jurisdiction of the enforcement authorities under the Act to impose the
penalty in question. The doctrine of double jeopardi 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,
D the contravention was proved and penalty was imposed. It is the penalty -t
under Sec. 5(1)(a) & (b) of the Repealed Act equival~nt 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]

E 0. Abdul Aziz & Ors. v. Addi. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1983
Madras 59; A.KL. 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.
" ~

F CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. ""-
95of1981.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.10.1978 of the Foreign 'Y-
Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, New Delhi in Appeal No. 112 of
1977.
G
S.P. Singh and Sunil Kr. Singh for the Appellants.

K.T.S. Tulsi, Addi. Solicitor General, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ms. A.
)(
Kripal and Kailash Vasdev for the Respondent.

H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
i(

P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR [RAMASWAMY, J.) 9~5

K. RAMASWAMY, J. A short but interesting question of law had A
arisen in this case. The appellant is a firm which owned three vessels, by
name M.V. Fathel Beri, 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 Fathelbari and 240 ~.P. Kalvin engine B
(second hand) to their vessel Fathel Rehman, which were purchased at the
cost of Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 55,000 respectively. Out of the amount payble
through ·Nakoda in Basrah, a sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid. For the third
~
vessel Saad Salam an agreement was entered into to fit in a second hantl
engine with Mis Mohd. Zasim of Kuwait at a price of 2,100 Kuwati Dinars
and payable in three annual instalments. The Addi. Director, Enforceme~t
c
·-., 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 als9
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 D
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 explana!-
tions, 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 E
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.
F
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 underl
the repealed Act before the Act came into force on September 19, 1973.
The impugned action, therefore, is without jurisdiction and authority of G
law. It is also contended that the proceedings against the appellant was
1

taken under the Customs Act, 1962 and the adjudicating authority imposed
x a penalty of Rs. 4,30,000. On Appeal, the Central Board of Excise and 1

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 H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A 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 and in accordance with any
B general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub-
section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally
by the Resereve Bank, no person in or resident in, (India)
shall-

(a) - make any payment to or for the credit of any person
c 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
D 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
E 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
F resident outside India:

xxx xxx xxx

( c) - draw, issue or negotiate any bill of exchange or promissory
note or acknowledge any debt, so that a right (whether actual
G or contingent) to receive a payment is created or transferred
in favour of any person resident outside ln.dia." ·

Section 23(1) of the Repealed Act prescribes penalty thus:

"No person shall enter into any contract or agreement which
H would directly or indirectly evade or avoid in any way the
P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR [RAMASWAMY, J.] 967

operation of any provisions of this Act or of any rule, directioh A
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) of Sec. 18 and B
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 C
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)."
I

A comparative study of these provisions of the Repealed Act and the D
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; E
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 con-
travention 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 F
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,'
G
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 H
968 SUPREME coµRT REPORTS (1992) 3 S.C.R.

A corresponding provisions of this Act."
)···
Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 provides the effect of
repeal thus :

"Where this Act or any Central Act or. Regulation made after
B the commencement of this act repeals any enactment hitherto
made or hereafter to be made, then, unless a different intention
appears, the repeal shall not -

xxx xxx xxx
c (e) affect any investigation, legal proceedings 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
D instituted, continued or enforced, and any such penalty, forfei-
ture or punishment may be imposed as if the Repealing Act or
Regulation had not been passed."

Sri Tulsi, the learned Addi. Solicitor General placing reliance in 0.
Abdul Aziz & Ors. v. Addi. Director of Enforcement, AIR 1983 Madras 59
E and A.KL. Labbai Thambi Maraicar v. Enforcement Directorate & Ors.,
AIR 1983 Madras 102, contended that in view of Sec. ~1(2) of the Act. read ""'
with Sec. 6 of the General Clauses 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.
F (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(2) of the Act or ·-f
Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act. We find no force in the contention. The
effect of the Repealed Act 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
G 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, forefeiture or punishment incurred
H during its operation are kept alive. Investigations to be made or any remedy
.
P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR [RAMASWAMY, J.] ;969

which may have been available before the repeal be enforced are also A
-( preserved. Such rights, liabilities, penalty, forefeiture or punishment, due
to repeal "shall not lapse". The saving clause, thus, aimed to preserve the
1

legal effect and consequences of things done though those effects fllld
consequences projected to post repealed period. The things done adum-
berated in Sec. 81(2) or Sec. 6 of the General Clause Act or penalty or
B
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
A 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 1

operation of Sec. 6- of General Clauses Act. What is unaffected by the c
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 1

liability, penalty, forfeiture, punishment incurred and the legal proceedings
for acquisition of a right, the former is saved whereas the later is not. In 1

spite of repeal the right to investigation or to take legal proceedings remain
D
unaffected and preserved as if the old Act continues to be operative. Wllat
remains to be done, after the Act came into force, is the quantification, if
1

necessary after the investigation and· legal proceedings and if proved to
impose the penalty, forfeiture or punishment. The Court takes congnizani;e
of the offence and not the offender or the acts done. What the court is lo
enquire into is whether the Act is incompatible with the Repealed Act and E
whether it manifested any contrary intentions to the Repealed Act. Unless
a different intention was been manifested in the Act, the Repealed Abt
would continue to be operative. Even in a case of bare repeal accompani~d
~
by a fresh legislation on the same subject, the provisions of the new Act
will have to be looked into to fmd where and how far the new Act envisages F
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 an~
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 G
intention. It merely reiterated the earlier law operating in the field. There-
fore, clause (d) of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act gets attracted to the
X. acts done or the penalties of forfeiture or punishment for any offence which
had already been committed before the repealed enactment, though no
criminaJ proceedings have been actually initiated under repealed enact'- H
I
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992] 3 S.C.R.

A ment before its repeal.

In Tiwari Kanhaiyalal & Ors. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi,
[1975} 4 sec 1101 where prosecution was laid after the repeal of the
Income-tax Act, 1922, the contention raised was that saving clauses in Sec.
297 of 1961 Income-tax Act did not save the punishment incurred under
B t~e 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. Mis Shah Sadiq & Sons., [1987} 3 SCC
c 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 continued to subsist and the respondents
are entitled to institute the proceedings, conduct investigation or enquiry
and impose such penalty.
D
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
E 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 thrtre times as contemplated under S"ec. 23 of the Repealed Act.
Therefore, though the Act evinced a contrary intention of imposition of
F 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 p~nalty proceedings terminated in favour of the
G 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 X
not take away the jurisdiction of the enforcement authorities under the Act
H to impose the penalty in question. The doctrine of double Jeopardi has no
P.V. MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR [RAMASWAMY, J.] '971
I

,..(_ application. The further contention that the offence is based on no A
evidence is devoid of any substance. Notice was given to the appellant. In
the show-cause notice contravention was brought to its notice. The appel-
lant gave the explanation. After consideration of the facts since there was
no express permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India for the
payinents by the appellant to the agent outside India, the contravention was B
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 find-
ings.

Accordingly we do not find any merit to interfere with the order. The C
appeal is accordingly dismissed, but under the circumstances the parties
are directed to bear their own costs. -

V.P.R. Appeal dismissed.

-~

>

.,.