FAO No.3917 of 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.3917 of 2007. Decided on: February 07, 2011. Soni Ram. .. Appellant VERSUS Appellate Tribunal and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporter? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? * * * PRESENT Mr.R.S.Chahal, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This is an appeal under Section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, against the adjudication order dated 30.09.1999, passed by the Assistant Director, Enforcement . . . 1 FAO No.3917 of 2007 Directorate, Jalandhar, imposing a penalty of ` 1 lac on the appellant for contravention of provisions of Section 8(1) & 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973, besides confiscating the foreign exchange to the tune of US Dollar 14500, UK Dollar 300, Canadian Dollar 100 and UAE Dirham 200. A finding of fact has been arrived at by the Tribunal vide adjudication order that the appellant had been dealing with foreign exchange without any general or special permission of the Reserve Bank and was found to be dealing with the foreign currency. Counsel for the respondents has cited Mohtesham Mohd. Ismail Vs. Spl. Director, Enforcement Directorate and another, 2007 (4) RCR (Crl.) 635, to contend that unless and until the finding of the Appellate Board is perverse or that the Board has ignored legal provisions, the scope of interference by the High Court in appeal is limited. Counsel for the appellant has contended that on the basis of the retracted confession, no punishment could be imposed. In the present case, the retraction was after a period of two years and the retraction at a belated stage cannot be considered as a ground for setting aside the punishment imposed. So far as the relief of penalty is concerned, Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, provides that penalty shall not exceed 5 times of the amount or value involved in any such contravention or ` 5,000/- which ever is more. A perusal of Section 50 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, indicates . . . 2 FAO No.3917 of 2007 that Section 50 speaks of maximum penalty. The authority has got discretion to impose any lesser fine also. This discretion which is conferred on the authority, has to be exercised in a fair manner and the exercise of such discretion has been considered to be a question of law in case 1982, Karnataka, 128 M, M. Narasimha Bhakta and another etc. Vs. Jayanthilal Gokuldas and others. The authority is required to adjudicate the penalty taking into consideration the various circumstances. The order of imposing penalty has been passed without any speaking order. No doubt the previous history or antecedents are not required to be seen, but it is not made out from the order that the appellant is a habitual, indulging in violation of provisions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. In view of order of imposition of penalty being a non-speaking order, in the interest of justice, taking into consideration the fact that the appellant has been facing proceedings since 1997; the scale of penalty having been specified in the statute being ` 5,000/- to any amount not exceeding to 5 times of the amount involved; ` 5,000/- having already been deposited, the amount of penalty is reduced to ` 25,000/- to be paid within a period of one month. With the above modification, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE February 07, 2011. rka . . . 3