KIRPAL SINGH Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment under appeal was passed by a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4000 of 1978 dismissing the writ petition of the appellant in limine.

(2.) The appellant was imposed a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. He was required to make deposit thereof within 45 days of 10/08/1973 when his guilt was adjudicated upon. At that time the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, for short the old Act, was in operation. Then came on the scene with effect from 1/04/1974 the FOREIGN EXCHANGE regulation ACT, 1973 , for short the new Act. As was permissible under old law and kept permitted under the new law, when the appellant failed to pay the penalty as ordered within time, a complaint was filed against him by the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi before a criminal court for punishing the appellant under S. 23-F of the old Act corresponding to S. 57 of the new Act. The appellant pleaded guilty and having been ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, underwent the same. Later the Directorate of Enforcement took resort to S. 70 of the new Act, which provides inter alia that if a penalty imposed on any person under the Act is not paid, the adjudicating officer, may by exclusion of other priorities, prepare a certificate signed by him specifying the amount due from such person and send it to the Collector of the district in which such person owns any property or resides or carries on his business, and the said Collector on receipt of such certificate is required to proceed to recover from the said person the amount specified as if it were an arrear of land revenue.

(3.) Having become aware of such proceedings somewhere in the year 1978, the-appellant approached the Punjab and Haryana High court by means of a writ petition primarily basing his claim on the ground that when he had been found guilty of the violation of the provisions of the old Act having committed the offence of non-payment of penalty under the old Act and suffered punishment he could not thereafter be put tothe pain of recovery of penalty as if arrears of land revenue, and the new Act having granted such right to the adjudicating officer should be read in the context to apply prospectively to a violation taking place after 1/04/1974 when it came in operation. It was further pleaded that since he had undergone the sentence imposed for commission of the criminal offence for non-payment of the penalty, that by itself wiped out the civil liability of payment of penalty and thus resort could not be had to S. 70 of the new Act. The High court having repelled these contentions, these again have been reiterated before us in the same strain.