PNP 1 FERA84-20.6.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION F.E.R.A. APPEAL NO.84 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2010 Shabbirbhai Kalyan ..Appellant. versus Union of India and others ..Respondents. ..... Mr. M.S. Dehlvi i/b Mr. Tushar Shah and Ms. Nirmala K. Vyas for the Appellant. Mr. D.A. Athawale with Mr. Rajinder Kumar and Mr. D.P. Singh for the Respondents. ...... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. 20 June 2011. P.C. : Upon adjudication of a notice to show cause, the Appellant was found to have violated the provisions of Section 9(1)(a) and Section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973. The notice to show cause was issued on 10 March 1997. The order of the Assistant Director imposing a penalty of Rs.2 lacs was passed on 30 July 1997. The finding against the Appellant is that he received a payment of Rs.4,05,000/- in India on the instruction of one Ajaz Mohammed of U.K., a person resident outside India and that by making a payment of an equivalent amount to an individual, the Appellant had contravened the provisions of sub- sections (a) and (b) of Section 9(1) PNP 2 FERA84-20.6.sxw of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973. Before the appellate tribunal the advocate for the Appellant did not contest the appeal on merits, but only requested that a lenient view should be taken on the ground that this was only a single transaction. The appellate tribunal, having considered the fact that a single transaction has been alleged against the Appellant who was a custodian of the money which was returned back to the original owner, reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs.2 lacs to Rs.1,50,000/-. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant relied on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Sudershan Boury v. Director of Enforcement, New Delhi1 in support of the proposition that the jurisdiction to impose a penalty has to be exercised judiciously. There can be no dispute about this principle of law. Significantly, the Appellant having accepted the finding against him, by not contesting the appeal on merits before the Tribunal and having sought only a lenient view, all the facts and circumstances of the case were duly taken into account by the appellate tribunal in reducing the penalty from Rs.2 lacs to Rs. 1,50,000/-. So construed, no substantial question of law arises. The Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, Civil Application 132 of 2010 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) (Anoop V. Mohta J.) 1 1981 LawSuit (Kar) 164.