{"id":195429,"date":"1987-05-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-04-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987"},"modified":"2016-12-14T07:21:26","modified_gmt":"2016-12-14T01:51:26","slug":"rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987","title":{"rendered":"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1364, \t\t 1987 SCR (3) 137<\/div>\n
Author: A Sen<\/div>\n
Bench: Sen, A.P. (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAI BAHADUR SETH SHREERAM DURGAPRASAD\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nSEN, A.P. (J)\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1364\t\t  1987 SCR  (3) 137\n 1987 SCC  (3)\t27\t  JT 1987 (2)\t590\n 1987 SCALE  (1)1081\n\n\nACT:\n    Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,  1947--Section 23\t(1)-\n'Whoever'--Interpretation  of--Comprehensive enough  to\t in-\nclude  an  association of persons such as a  firm--Does\t not\nconnote a natural person alone.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The\t Director  of  Enforcement  initiated\tadjudication\nproceedings  against  the  appellants--a  partnership  firm,\nunder  Section 23(1), as amended, for failure to  repatriate\nthe  full  value in foreign exchange earned  by\t it  against\nexport shipments of manganese ore made during 1952-1958, and\nthereby contravening Section 12(2), as well as Section\t4(1)\nof the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The appellants\ndid  not contest the charge under Section 12(2) of  the\t Act\nbut questioned the liability of the firm on the ground\tthat\nthe amended Section 23(1) as well as Section 23C  introduced\nby  the Amendment Act came into force on September 20,\t1957\nand  were, therefore, inapplicable to the  export  shipments\nfrom the year 1952 onwards till that date and if at all, the\nfirm  could  only be held liable under the  amended  Section\n23(1)  read with Section 23C as from that date. It was\tcon-\ntended that the word 'whoever' in sub-section (1) of Section\n23  of the Act before its amendment denoted only  a  natural\nperson,\t and association of persons, such as a\tfirm,  would\nnot  fall within the connotation of the word 'whoever'.\t The\nDirector of Enforcement held that the firm and its  partners\nhad  deliberately  underinvoiced shipments at  the  time  of\nexport\tand also diverted the undeclared proceeds  to  their\naccounts  with foreign banks with an intention not to  repa-\ntriate the sale proceeds in the prescribed manner within the\nprescribed period in respect of each shipment. He also\theld\nthat  the two persons incharge of, and responsible for,\t the\nconduct\t of the business of the partnership firm during\t the\nrelevant  period did not produce any evidence to  show\tthat\nthe contravention in question had taken place without  their\nknowledge  or that they had exercised due diligence to\tpre-\nvent  such  contravention, and they  were  accordingly\tmade\nliable\tfor  contravention of Section 12(2) of the  Act\t for\nfailure\t to  repatriate the foreign exchange earned  on\t the\nshipments and a penalty was imposed on the partnership firm.\n138\n    The Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board,  howev-\ner, disagreed with the Director of Enforcement, accepted the\ncontention  of\tthe appellants and accordingly\treduced\t the\namount of penalty.\n    The\t High  Court allowed the appeal of the\tDirector  of\nEnforcement and restored the original order of the  Director\nof Enforcement.\n    In\tappeal to this Court it was submitted on  behalf  of\nthe appellants that though Article 20(1) of the Constitution\nwould  not in terms apply, the principles  embodied  thereto\nwould  still govern and that the word 'whoever' in  sub-sec-\ntion (1) of Section 23 before its amendment by Act XXXIX  of\n1957 connoted only a natural person i.e. those who  actually\ncontravened  the provisions of Section 12(1) of the  Act  by\nfailure to repatriate full value of foreign exchange  earned\nor  exports and would not take in corporate  liability\tand,\ntherefore, association of persons, such as a firm, would not\nfall  within the connotation of the word 'whoever', that  by\nthe  Amendment Act, a new Section 23(1) was substituted\t and\nSection\t 23C was introducted and the effect of these  provi-\nsions  was that after September 20, 1987  adjudication\tpro-\nceedings  or criminal proceedings could be taken in  respect\nof a contravention mentioned in Section 23(1), while  before\nthe amendment only criminal proceedings before a court could\nbe instituted to punish the offender.\n    On behalf of the respondents it was contended that on  a\ncombined reading of Section 23(1) and 12(2), the only possi-\nble  construction  was that the word  'whoever'\t includes  a\nperson\tand, therefore, initiation of adjudication  proceed-\nings  against the partnership firm was permissible and\tsub-\nsection\t (4) of Section 23 clearly contemplates\t prosecution\nof a company or other body corporate.\nDismissing the appeal, this Court,\n    HELD:  1. It is clear from Sections 4(1), 12(2),  23(1),\n23(4) and 23C that the word 'whoever' in sub-section (1)  of\nSection 23 of the Act before its amendment was comprehensive\nenough to include an association of persons, such as a firm,\nand did not connote a natural person alone. The word 'whoev-\ner' in the unamended Section 23(1) must be read in  juxtapo-\nsition\twith  Section  12(2) and must mean  any\t person\t who\ncommits\t a contravention of that Section without  exception.\nThat must be the legal connotation of the word 'whoever' and\nit necessarily takes in corporate liability and includes any\nassociation  of persons such as a partnership firm.  Such  a\nconstruction  is  borne out by the plain  language  of\tsub-\nsection (4) of Section 23 inserted by the Act XXXIV of\n 139\n1950 which provides that if the person committing an offence\npunishable under sub-section (1) of Section 23 is a  company\nor other body corporate, every director, manager,  secretary\nor other officer thereof, unless he proves that the  offence\nwas committed without his knowledge or that he exercised all\ndue  diligence\tto prevent its commission, be deemed  to  be\nguilty of such offence. The Act, therefore, clearly  contem-\nplated\tthat adjudication proceedings under sub-section\t (1)\nof Section 23 prior to its amendment could be initiated\t not\nonly  against the person who actually commits  contravention\nbut  also  casts vicarious liability on\t an  association  of\npersons\t such as a partnership firm or an artificial  'or  a\nlegal entity like a company. [143FH; 144A-C]\n    The\t High Court was right in setting aside the order  of\nthe Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board and  restor-\ning that of the Director of Enforcement levying a penalty of\nRs.  15,00,000 on the appellants for failure  to  repatriate\nforeign\t exchange in contravention of Section 12(2)  of\t the\nAct. The initiation of adjudication proceedings for  failure\nto repatriate foreign exchange on shipments of manganese ore\nprior to September 20, 1957, the date when the Amendment Act\ncame into force, was permissible. [144D; F]\nUnion  of India v. Sukumar Pyne,<\/a> [1966] 2 SCR  34,  referred\nto.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 627
\nof 1986.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment\t and Order dated 7.3.  1986  of\t the
\nBombay High Court in Crl. Appeal No. 119 of 1981.
\n    Ashok Sen, Kapil Sibbal, A.K. Sanghi and R.L. Sanghi for
\nthe Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
M.S. Rao, A.S. Rao and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nSEN,  J. The short question involved in this appeal by\tspe-
\ncial  leave directed against the judgment and order  of\t the
\nHigh  Court  of ‘Bombay dated March 7, 1986 is\twhether\t the
\nword  ‘whoever’\t in sub-s. (1) of s. 23 of the\tForeign\t Ex-
\nchange\tRegulation  Act, 1947 before its  amendment  by\t Act
\nXXXIX of 1957 denoted only a natural person and\t association
\nof persons, such as a firm, would not fall within the conno-
\ntation\tof  the word ‘whoever’. By the judgment,  a  learned
\nSingle Judge
\n140<\/span>
\nof  the\t High Court allowed the appeal of  the\tDirector  of
\nEnforcement  under s. 54 of the Act and set aside the  order
\nof  the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board,  Bombay
\ndated January 30, 1981 and restored the order of the  Direc-
\ntor of Enforcement dated August 17, 1978 holding the  appel-
\nlants  guilty of contravention of s. 12(2) of the  Act\tread
\nwith  the notification issued by the Government of India  in
\nthe Ministry of Finance, New Delhi dated April 22, 1952\t and
\nlevying a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000. By its order the Foreign
\nExchange Regulation Appellate Board held that there could be
\nno  levy  of penalty on the appellants-firm for\t failure  to
\nrepatriate  foreign exchange on shipments of  manganese\t ore
\nmade prior to September 20, 1957 i.e. prior to the amendment
\nof s. 23(1) of the Act and the introduction of s. 23C by the
\nAmendment Act and accordingly reduced the amount of  penalty
\nto  Rs.3,  10,000. AS a result of the decision of  the\tHigh
\nCourt,\tthe order of the Director of Enforcement  levying  a
\npenalty\t of  Rs. 15,00,000 on the appellants  has  been\t re-
\nstored.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t facts\tgiving rise to the appeal  are\tas  follows.
\nMessrs Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram Durgaprasad were a partner-
\nship firm engaged in the business of winning, extracting and
\ngetting\t manganese ore from their manganese mines at  Tumsar
\non a very large scale. During the period from 1952 to  1958,
\nthe  partnership firm made 52 shipments of manganese ore  to
\nvarious foreign countries and earned huge amount of  foreign
\nexchange. It however failed to repatriate the full value  in
\nforeign\t exchange  against the aforesaid  52  shipments\t and
\nthereby\t contravened  s. 12(2) of the Act. The\tDirector  of
\nEnforcement  accordingly initiated adjudication\t proceedings
\nagainst the appellants under s. 23(1) as amended for contra-
\nvention\t of  s.\t 12(2) as well as s. 4(1) of  the  Act.\t The
\nappellants  stated before the Director of  Enforcement\tthat
\nthey  did not contest the charge under s. 12(2) of  the\t Act
\nbut questioned the liability of the firm on the ground\tthat
\nthe  amended  s. 23(1) as well as s. 23C introduced  by\t the
\nAmendment Act came into force on September 20, 1957 and were
\ntherefore inapplicable to the export shipments from the year
\n1952  onwards till that date; and if at all, the firm  could
\nonly be held liable under the amended s. 23(1) read with  s.
\n23C as from that date. It was contended that the word ‘whoe-
\nver’ in sub-s. (1) of s. 23 of the Act before its  amendment
\ndenoted\t only a natural person and association\tof  persons,
\nsuch as a firm, would not fail within the connotation of the
\nword  ‘whoever’.  The Director of Enforcement by  his  order
\ndated August 17, 1978 repelled the contention and held\tthat
\nthe  firm  and its partners had\t deliberately  underinvoiced
\nshipments at the time of export and also diverted the  unde-
\nclared proceeds to their accounts with foreign banks with an
\nintention not to repatriate the sale
\n141<\/span>
\nproceeds  in  the prescribed manner  within  the  prescribed
\nperiod\tin respect of each shipment. He dealt with the\tevi-
\ndence  in detail with reference to the books of account\t and
\ncame  to  the  conclusion that both  Durgaprasad  Saraf\t and
\nUmashanker  Aggarwal were incharge of, and responsible\tfor,
\nthe  conduct of the business of the partnership firm  during
\nthe  relevant period. Neither of them produced any  evidence
\nto  show that the contravention in question had taken  place
\nwithout\t their\tknowledge  or that they\t had  exercised\t due
\ndiligence  to prevent such contravention. They were  accord-
\ningly  made liable for contravention of s. 12(2) of the\t Act
\nfor failure to repatriate the foreign exchange earned on the
\naforesaid  52  shipments and were imposed a penalty  of\t Rs.
\n15,00,000  on  the partnership firm.  The  Foreign  Exchange
\nRegulation Appellate Board however disagreed with the Direc-
\ntor of Enforcement and accepted the contention of the appel-
\nlants and accordingly reduced the amount of penalty to Rs.3,
\n10,000.\n<\/p>\n
    Shri Asoke Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appel-
\nlants  with  his usual fairness frankly concedes  that\tArt.
\n20(1)  of the Constitution would not in terms apply but,  he
\ncontends,  the principles embodied therein would still\tgov-
\nern.  He  has confined his submissions to  only\t one  point,
\nnamely,\t that  the  word ‘whoever’ in sub-s. (1)  of  s.  23
\nbefore\tits amendment by Act XXXIX of 1957 connoted  only  a
\nnatural\t person\t i.e.  those who  actually  contravened\t the
\nprovisions  of s. 12(1) of the Act by failure to  repatriate
\nfull  value of foreign exchange earned on exports and  would
\nnot take in corporate liability and therefore association of
\npersons, such as a firm, would not fall within the  connota-
\ntion  of  the word ‘whoever’. The  learned  counsel  further
\ncontends that by the Amendment Act, new s. 23(1) was substi-
\ntuted  and s. 23C introducted w.e.f. September 20, 1957\t and
\nthe  effect  of these provisions was that after\t that  date,
\nadjudication  proceedings or criminal proceedings  could  be
\ntaken  in respect of a contravention mentioned in  s.  23(1)
\nwhile before the amendment only criminal proceedings  before
\na  Court could be instituted to punish the offender. We\t are
\nafraid, the contention cannot prevail. It is not correct  to
\nsay  that the amended s. 23(1) of the Act does not apply  to
\ncontraventions\twhich  took place before the  Amendment\t Act
\ncame  into force. Shri Madhusudan Rao, learned\tcounsel\t ap-
\npearing\t for  the  respondents rightly contends\t that  on  a
\ncombined  reading of ss. 23(1) and 12(2), the only  possible
\nconstruction  is that the word ‘whoever’ includes  a  person
\nand therefore initiation of adjudication proceedings against
\nthe  partnership firm was permissible. He  draws  sustenance
\nfrom  the  provision contained in subs. (4) of s.  23  which
\nclearly contemplates prosecution of a company or other\tbody
\ncorporate. As regards the applicability of the amended
\n142<\/span>
\ns.  23(1)  read\t with s. 23C with regard  to  initiation  of
\nadjudication proceedings in respect of contraventions  which
\ntook  place  before the Amendment Act came  into  force,  he
\nrightly\t contends that the matter is concluded by the  deci-
\nsion of this Court in Union of India v. Sukumar Pyne,<\/a> [1966]
\n2 SCR 34.\n<\/p>\n
    In\torder  to appreciate the contentions raised,  it  is
\nnecessary  to  set out the statutory provisions\t insofar  as
\nrelevant.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “4.  (1) Except with the previous\t general  or
\n\t      special  permission  of the Reserve  Bank,  no
\n\t      person   other  than  an\t authorised   dealer
\n\t      shall   ……  sell or lend to,\tor  exchange
\n\t      with,  any  person  not  being  an  authorised
\n\t      dealer, any foreign exchange.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      12.2. Where any export of goods has been\tmade
\n\t      to which a notification under sub-section\t (1)
\n\t      applies,\tno person entitled to sell, or\tpro-
\n\t      cure the sale of, the said goods shall, except
\n\t      with the permission of the Reserve Bank, do or
\n\t      refrain  from  doing any act  with  intent
\n\t      to secure that–\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t(a) the sale of goods is delayed  to
\n\t      an extent which is unreasonable having  regard
\n\t      to the ordinary course of trade, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       (b)  payment  for the goods  is\tmade
\n\t      otherwise\t than  in the prescribed  manner  or
\n\t      does not represent the full amount payable  by
\n\t      the  foreign  buyer in respect of\t the  goods,
\n\t      subject  to such deductions, if any as may  be
\n\t      allowed by the Reserve Bank, or is delayed  to
\n\t      such extent as aforesaid:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t       Provided\t  that\tno  proceedings\t  in
\n\t      respect  of  any contravention  of  this\tsub-
\n\t      section  shall be instituted unless  the\tpre-
\n\t      scribed period has expired and payment for the
\n\t      goods  representing the full amount as  afore-
\n\t      said  has\t not  been made\t in  the  prescribed
\n\t      manner.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t  Section  23(1) prior to its amendment\t and
\n\t      the  original sub-s. (3) now renumbered as  s.
\n\t      23(4) are as follows:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “23. (1) Whoever contravenes any of the provi-
\n\t      sions of this Act or of any rule, direction or
\n\t      order made thereunder
\n\t       143<\/span>
\n\t      shall  be punishable with imprisonment  for  a
\n\t      term  which  may extend to two years  or\twith
\n\t      fine  or with both, and any Court\t trying\t any
\n\t      such  contravention may, if it thinks fit\t and
\n\t      in  addition  to\tany sentence  which  it\t may
\n\t      impose for such contravention, direct that any
\n\t      currency,\t security, gold or silver, or  goods
\n\t      or  other\t property in respect  of  which\t the
\n\t      contravention has taken place shall be confis-
\n\t      cated.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      23.(4).  If the person committing\t an  offence
\n\t      punishable under this section is a company  or
\n\t      other body corporate, every director, manager,
\n\t      secretary\t or  other  officer  thereof  shall,
\n\t      unless he proves that the offence was  commit-
\n\t      ted without his knowledge or that he exercised
\n\t      all  due diligence to prevent its\t commission,
\n\t      be deemed to be guilty of such offence.”
\n\t      Sub-s. (1) of s. 23C is as follows:
\n\t      “23C. Offences by companies–(1) If the person
\n\t      committing a contravention is a company, every
\n\t      person who, at the time the contravention\t was
\n\t      committed, was incharge of, and was  responsi-
\n\t      ble  to,\tthe company for the conduct  of\t the
\n\t      business of the company as well as the  compa-
\n\t      ny,  shall be deemed to be guilty of the\tcon-
\n\t      travention and shall be liable to be proceeded
\n\t      against and punished accordingly:
\n\t\t       Provided\t that nothing  contained  in
\n\t      this sub-section shall render any such  person
\n\t      liable  to  punishment if he proves  that\t the
\n\t      contravention took place without his knowledge
\n\t      or  that\the exercised all  due  diligence  to
\n\t      prevent such contravention.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    It is clear from these provisions that the word  ‘whoev-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
er’  in sub-s. (1) of s. 23 of the Act before its  amendment
\nwas  comprehensive enough to include an association of\tper-
\nsons,  such as a firm, and did not connote a natural  person
\nalone.\tThere  is no reason why the word  ‘whoever’  in\t the
\nsection\t should not receive its plain and  natural  meaning.
\nAccording to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol.  2,
\np. 2543, ‘whoever’ means’ ‘any one who. any who’. The  mean-
\ning given in Webster Comprehensive Dictionary, International
\nedn.,  vol. 2 at p. 1437 is ‘any one without exception\t‘any
\nperson\twho’.  In our judgment. the word  ‘whoever’  in\t the
\nunamended  s.  23(1) must be read in juxtaposition  with  s.
\n12(2) and must mean any person who commits a
\n144<\/span>
\ncontravention  of that section without exception. That\tmust
\nbe the legal connotation of the word ‘whoever’ and it neces-
\nsarily takes in corporate liability and includes any associ-
\nation of persons such as a partnership firm. That  construc-
\ntion  of ours is borne out by the plain language  of  sub-s.
\n(4) of s. 23 inserted by Act XXXIV of 1950. It provides that
\nif the person committing an offence punishable under  sub-s.
\n(1)  of\t s. 23 is a company or other body  corporate,  every
\ndirector, manager, secretary or other officer thereof shall,
\nunless he proves that the offence was committed without\t his
\nknowledge or that he exercised all due diligence to  prevent
\nits commission, be deemed to be guilty of such offence.\t The
\nAct  therefore clearly contemplated that  adjudication\tpro-
\nceedings  under sub-s. (1) of s. 23 prior to  its  amendment
\ncould be initiated not only against the person who  actually
\ncommits contravention but also casts vicarious liability  on
\nan  association of persons such as a partnership firm or  an
\nartificial or a legal entity like a company. It is therefore
\nidle to contend that the appellants were not liable to\tpay’
\npenalty\t for  failure to repatriate foreign exchange  on  52
\nshipments  of manganese ore effected through the years\t1952
\nto 1958. Upon that view, the learned Single Judge was  right
\nin  setting aside the order of the Foreign Exchange  Regula-
\ntion  Appellate Board and restoring that of the Director  of
\nEnforcement levying a penalty of Rs. 15,00,000 on the appel-
\nlants for failure to repatriate foreign exchange in  contra-
\nvention of s. 12(2) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
    The\t contention  of the learned  counsel  that  recourse
\ncould not be had to the amended s. 23(1) read with s. 23C of
\nthe  Act  in respect of the contravention of  s.  12(2)\t for
\nfailure on the part of the appellants to repatriate  foreign
\nexchange on shipments of manganese ore made prior to Septem-
\nber 20, 1957, and there could be no initiation of  adjudica-
\ntion proceedings under the amended s. 23(1) read with s. 23C
\nor  levy  of penalty on the appellants must  also  fail\t for
\nanother\t reason. In Sukumar Pyne’s case the  Court  reversed
\nthe  decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sukumar Pyne  v.
\nUnion of India & Ors., AIR (1962) Cal. 590 striking down  s.
\n23(1)(a) as being violative of Art. 14 of the  Constitution.
\nRegarding the point, namely, whether s. 23(1)(a) having been
\nsubstituted by Amendment Act XXXIX of 1957 would have retro-
\nspective  operation in respect of the alleged offence  which
\ntook  place in 1954, the High Court came to  the  conclusion
\nthat  the  petitioner had a vested right to be tried  by  an
\nordinary  court\t of the land with such rights of  appeal  as
\nwere  open to all and although s. 23(1)(a)  was\t procedural,
\nwhere a vested right was affected, prima facie, it was not a
\nquestion of procedure. Therefore, the High Court came to the
\nconclusion that the provision as to adjudication by the
\n145<\/span>
\nDirector  of  Enforcement could not have  any  retrospective
\noperation.  It was held that ‘the impairment of a  fight  by
\nputting\t a  new\t restriction thereupon is not  a  matter  of
\nprocedure  only’.  It  impairs a substantive  right  and  an
\nenactment  that does so is not retrospective unless it\tsays
\nso expressly or by necessary intendment. The Court  reversed
\nthe High Court and held that effect of these provisions\t was
\nthat  after the amendment of 1957, adjudication or  criminal
\nproceedings could be taken up in respect of a  contravention
\nmentioned in s. 23(1) while before the amendment only crimi-
\nnal proceedings before a Court could be instituted to punish
\nthe  offender. In repelling the contention advanced by\tShri
\nN.C.  Chatterjee  that the new amendments did not  apply  to
\ncontraventions\twhich  took place before the Act  came\tinto
\nforce, the Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “In our opinion, there is force in the conten-
\n\t      tion  of\tthe  learned  Solicitor-General.  As
\n\t      observed\tby  this Court in Rao  Shiv  Bahadur
\n\t      Singh v. The State of Vindhya Pradesh,<\/a>  [1953]
\n\t      SCR  1188, a person accused of the  commission
\n\t      of an offence has no vested right to be  tried
\n\t      by  a particular court or a particular  proce-
\n\t      dure except in so far as there is any  consti-
\n\t      tutional objection by way of discrimination or
\n\t      the  violation of any other fundamental  right
\n\t      is  involved. It is well recognised  that\t “no
\n\t      person  has  a vested right in any  course  of
\n\t      procedure\t “(vide\t Maxwell  11th\tEdition,  p.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      216),  and we see no reason why this  ordinary
\n\t      rule  should not prevail in the present  case.
\n\t      There  is no principle underlying Art.  20  of
\n\t      the  Constitution which makes a right  to\t any
\n\t      course of procedure a vested right.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
These  principles  are clearly attracted to  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances of the present case and therefore the  initia-
\ntion  of adjudication proceedings for failure to  repatriate
\nforeign\t exchange  on shipments of manganese  ore  prior  to
\nSeptember  20,\t1957, the date when the Amendment  Act\tcame
\ninto force, was permissible.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal must therefore fail and is dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.P.V.\t\t\t\t\t       Appeal\tdis-\nmissed.\n146<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1364, 1987 SCR (3) 137 Author: A Sen Bench: Sen, A.P. (J) PETITIONER: RAI BAHADUR SETH SHREERAM DURGAPRASAD Vs. RESPONDENT: DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT DATE OF JUDGMENT01\/05\/1987 BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) BENCH: SEN, A.P. (J) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195429","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ... vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ... vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-14T01:51:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T01:51:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\"},\"wordCount\":2580,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\",\"name\":\"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ... vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-14T01:51:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ... vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ... vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-14T01:51:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987","datePublished":"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T01:51:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987"},"wordCount":2580,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987","name":"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram ... vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-04-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-14T01:51:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rai-bahadur-seth-shreeram-vs-director-of-enforcement-on-1-may-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rai Bahadur Seth Shreeram … vs Director Of Enforcement on 1 May, 1987"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195429","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195429"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195429\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195429"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195429"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195429"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}