• Complaint  - During pendency of the complaint, the Act (FERA) was repealed   - The fact that the adjudicating officer chose to drop the proceedings against the appellant herein does not absolve the appellant of the criminal liability incurred by him by virtue of the operation of Section 40 read with Section 56 of the Act - The offence under Section 56 read with Section 40 of the A renewal of ct is an independent offence - FERA. Held, If the factual allegations contained in the charge are to be proved eventually at the trial of the criminal case, the appellant is still liable for the punishment notwithstanding the fact that the presence of the appellant was required by the adjudicating officer in connection with an enquiry into certain alleged violations of the various provisions of the Act, but at a subsequent stage the adjudicating officer opined that there was either insufficient or no material to proceed against the appellant for the alleged violations of the Act, is immaterial.    (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 898
  • Complaint - Quashed on the ground that FERA Act repealed - Appeal pending  Appeal  against the conclusion of the adjudicating officer that the proceedings against the appellant herein for the alleged violation of the various provisions of the FERA Act are required to be dropped has not even attained finality - Admittedly, such an order of the adjudicating officer confirmed by the statutory appellate authority is pending consideration in an appeal before the High Court - Though, in our opinion, the result of such an appeal is immaterial for determining the culpability of the appellant for the alleged violation of Section 40 read with Section 56 (of the FERA Act) , we must record that the submission made on behalf of the appellant in this regard itself is inherently untenable. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 898