The Calcutta High Court held that appeals from FERA penalty proceedings retain their penal character and can be treated as criminal appeals even after FEMA replaced FERA. This preserves the criminal nature of adjudication under the repealed statute.
FERA Penalty Appeals Retain Penal Character, Rules Calcutta HC
The Calcutta High Court has ruled that appeals arising from penalty proceedings under the now-repealed Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), even if filed after the enactment of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), retain their penal character and can be treated as criminal appeals. The decision clarifies the classification of such proceedings in light of the shift from a punitive FERA regime to the more civil, compliance-oriented FEMA framework.
The Court reasoned that since the impugned adjudication arose under FERA—a statute with penal sanctions—the character of the proceeding is determined by the law in force at the time of the adjudication, not by the subsequent legislative shift. As such, appeals challenging FERA penalties are not purely civil or administrative but bear criminal consequences and may be entertained as criminal proceedings. This ensures that constitutional and procedural safeguards applicable to criminal cases remain accessible to affected parties.
The nature of the proceeding is to be determined by the character of the statute under which it arises and the consequences flowing therefrom, irrespective of the nomenclature used in appeal.
The ruling reinforces the principle that repealing legislation does not automatically erase the penal consequences of actions taken under prior enactments. For practitioners, this means that appellants challenging legacy FERA penalties can invoke criminal procedural rights, including arguments based on double jeopardy or proportionality of punishment, and such appeals may be preferred in appropriate criminal forums.
Citations
- Calcutta High Court Order, 2 November 2026
