Mandatory Opportunity Notice Under FERA and Right to Speedy Trial: Supreme Court Quashes 24-Year-Old Proceedings

Case Snapshot

• Case Name: Standard Chartered Bank & Anr. v. Enforcement Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.

• Citation: 2026 INSC 727

• Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra

• Date of Judgment: July 21, 2026

• Area of Law: Criminal Law, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, CrPC, Constitutional Law

Judgment in Brief

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed criminal complaints and summoning orders against the appellants under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA), on three independent grounds. First, the High Court erred in holding that the availability of a revision remedy under Section 397 of the CrPC barred the maintainability of a petition under Section 482. Second, the mandatory opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) of FERA was not served on the appellants, and the Magistrate took cognizance without recording satisfaction of compliance. Third, the prosecution's inordinate and unexplained delay of over two decades, coupled with lack of diligence, violated the appellants' fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment reaffirms that the right to speedy trial is implicit in Article 21 and extends to every stage of criminal proceedings.

Relevant Facts

• The appellants (Standard Chartered Bank and an officer) were prosecuted under Sections 56(1) and 73(3) of FERA for alleged contraventions in handling remittances routed through a Vostro Account in 1991-1992.

• The complaints were instituted on May 30, 2002, just before the sunset period under FEMA would end on June 1, 2002.

• The Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons on May 30, 2002 itself, without recording satisfaction that an opportunity notice under Section 61(2) of FERA had been served.

• The appellants approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaints. The High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the availability of revision under Section 397 CrPC barred the maintainability of Section 482 petitions.

• Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the availability of an alternative remedy

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.