21 Jul 2026- The Supreme Court in Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. v. Enforcement Officer,
Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. dealt with the mandatory requirement of notice under Section
61(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), and the right to a speedy trial
under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Statutory provisions involved:
Section 56, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA)- Offences and prosecutions,
including penalties for contravention of the provisions of FERA.
Section 61(2), Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) (Including the proviso)-
Opportunity before prosecution.
Section 397, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)- Revisional jurisdiction of the High
Court.
Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)- Inherent power of the High Court.
Article 21, Constitution of India- Right to life including Right to speedy trial.
FACTS:
The appellants were accused of contravening the provisions of the FERA. A no of demand drafts
and banker’s cheques were purchased on proxy on behalf of a company residing outside India and
were processed through different banks’ branches, and the amount was credited to the benefit of
Indo International Corporation Ltd. Later, the bank found that the remittances were not in
accordance with the Exchange Control Regulations and the provisions of FERA and reversed the
credit entries, blocked the amount of ₹30 lakh, and gave the money to the government authorities
as per FERA directions. Even after these actions, the authorities alleged that the money had been
unlawfully credited to a person resident outside India and the appellants were prosecuted under
Section 56(1) of FERA.
Criminal complaints were filed in 2002. The High Court refused to quash the proceedings, holding
that a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC was not maintainable due to the availability of an
alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC. The appellants challenged this
before the Supreme Court.
LEGAL ISSUE:
MAINTAINABILITY: “Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the availability of an
alternative remedy of filing a revision under Section 397 of the CrPC would operate as a bar to the
maintainability of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC?”
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE: “Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of
an opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) of FERA warrants quashing of the
criminal complaints and the summoning order issued against the appellants?”
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL: “Whether the appellants’ fundamental right to a speedy trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India could be said to have been violated in the facts and
circumstances of the present case?”
OBITER:
The Supreme Court observed that the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482
CRPC are for the purpose of securing the ends of justice and that cannot be curtailed merely
due to the fact any other treatment of revision is available
“The availability of an alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 of the CrPC does not,
by itself, operate as a bar to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section
482 of the CrPC.”
The Supreme Court held that compliance with the proviso of Section 61(2) FERA is a
mandatory precondition for prosecution under Section 56. Since no meaningful opportunity
was served on the appellants, the criminal complaints and the summoning order were quashed.
The court further emphasised that the opportunity notice under Section 61(2) is not in formality,
but a safeguard protecting the principles of natural justice, and such notice must be real,
meaningful and adequate before criminal prosecution can be initiated.
The court also reiterated that the constitutional right to speedy trial is an important part of
Article 21 and it applies to every stage of the criminal proceedings. The court must consider the
nature of the case, including the reason for the delay, the conduct of the parties and the surrounding
circumstances, not just the passage of time.
In this context, the court relied on the following observation:
“right to a speedy trial is one of the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution irrespective
of whether the accused is in custody or on bail, and irrespective of the nature or gravity of the
offence, and held that where a High Court, on an examination of the facts and circumstances of a
given case, finds that the continuation of a proceeding would amount to a violation of Article 21,
it ought not to hesitate in exercising its inherent power or writ jurisdiction to bring such
proceedings to an end.”
RATIO:
The judgment reinforces that the procedural safeguards cannot be dealt with as empty formalities,
and that criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to hold wherein obligatory statutory requirements
are neglected or wherein An unjustified postpone defeats the constitutional assure of a fair and
speedy trial. Consequently, the proceedings have been quashed as they had been opposite to each
the statutory mandate and the constitutional assure under Article 21.
