ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE Vs. SUBHASH CHANDRA TULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, appellant has challenged the order dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi whereby Revision Petition of the appellant has been dismissed on the ground that same had not been filed by competent person. The Tribunal has taken this view by following the order dated 4th August, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in Criminal Appeal No. 806/2007 titled M.I. Enterprises (I) P. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Directorate of Enforcement. Learned Single Judge has held that Deputy Legal Advisor was not competent to file revision on behalf of the appellant prior to 23rd February, 2009. The Directorate of Enforcement initiated proceedings against the respondent for contravening the Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 9(1) (d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) (since repealed). It was alleged that respondent had dealt in foreign exchange currency without permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Proceedings were initiated before the Adjudicating Authority. Show cause notice was issued to the respondent. Evidence was led by the parties before Adjudicating Authority. Vide a reasoned order dated 31st March, 2004 Adjudicating Authority held that no case was made out against the respondent for having committed any offence under Sections 8(1), 8(2) and 9(1) (d) of FERA, consequently, dropped the proceedings. Adjudicating Officer held as under: -

(2.) APPELLANT preferred a Revision Petition bearing number 123/2005 before the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange, New Delhi, which has been dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal. Revision Petition was preferred by the Dy. Legal Advisor for and on behalf of the appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that Dy. Legal Advisor was authorised by the Government of India vide order dated 23.02.2009 to prefer the revision petitions against the order of Adjudicating Officer. This order was passed by the Central Government during the pendency of Revision Petition. Thus, it cannot be said that revision was not preferred by a competent person duly authorised in this regard.