ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK LIMITED Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr K. K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, raised several contentions in support of the appeal; one of them being that having regard to the fact that as the offence is said to have been committed by a company; and as in terms of Section 56 of the Foreign b exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short "the Act") , the punishment of mandatory imprisonment has to be imposed; no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the company and in that view of the matter, the company as well as the person referred to in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 68 thereof cannot be proceeded with.

(2.) In support of the said contention reliance has been placed on a recent three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Asstt. Commr. v. Velliappa textiles Ltd1 We do not prima facie agree with the ratio laid down in velliappa Textiles1.

(3.) In this case the Company is the "authorised dealer" within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the Act. The authorised dealer indisputably is required to comply with the statutory requirements contained in Sections 8, 9 and 49 of " the Act read with Chapter X of the RBI Manual. The contraventions of the provisions of the Act having allegedly taken place at the hands of the authorised dealer, that is, Appellant 1, and, thus, although it is a company it is liable to be proceeded against. Section 56 of the Act provides for different punishments for commission of different offences. It is true that in an offence of this nature a mandatory punishment has been provided for but offences e falling under other part of the said section do not call for mandatory imprisonment. Section 56 of the Act covers both cases where an offender can be punished with imprisonment or fine and a mandatory provision of imprisonment and fine. In the event it is held that a case involving graver offence allegedly committed by a company and consequently, the persons who are in charge of the affairs of the company as also the other persons, f cannot be proceeded against, only because the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, in our opinion, the same would not only lead to reverse discrimination but also go against the legislative intent. The intention of parliament is to identify the offender and bring him to book.