Order This is a batch of 36 petitions (18 quash petitions and 18 stay petitions) filed by the same petitioner M.Abdul Salam of Ramanathapuram District under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Madurai in C.C.Nos. 11 to 28 of 1982. 2. The facts are briefly as follows: The Office of the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, Madras, raided the premises of the petitioner on 19.3.1978 and seized some documents and directed him to appear before them at Madurai. Statements were obtained from the petitioner by the Officers of the respondent-Directorate by using threat and force. Then the respondent issued show cause notices against the petitioner under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act alleging that he made very many payments on behalf of foreigners residing outside India. The petitioner gave his reply, and after enquiry, the respondent levied penalty of various sums of amount for violation of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Rules. The respondent imposed a penalty from Rs.24,000/- to Rs.13,500/-The petitioner is said to have filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before the High Court under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the same is pending. At this juncture, the respondent has laid the above mentioned 18 complaints before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Madurai prosecuting the petitioner herein for the very same offence under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The petitioner has filed 18 petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash them. According to the petit oner, adjudication proceedings have already been taken and penalties have been imposed on the petitioner. Therefore, it is urged a prosecution under Section 56 of the Act will amount double jeopardy. 3. Now, the point for consideration is, whether there are any grounds for this Court to interfere in its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. The facts narrated supra speak for themselves. Criminal liability for any contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is separate and distinct from confiscation or seizure or levying of penalty by the respondent in the adjudication proceedings. This has been clearly laid down even as early as in 1962 in the decision reported in Mohd. Kasim v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise Mohd. Kasim v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise (1961) 2 MLJ. 382 : (1961) MLJ. This has been clearly laid down even as early as in 1962 in the decision reported in Mohd. Kasim v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise Mohd. Kasim v. Assistant Collector, Central Excise (1961) 2 MLJ. 382 : (1961) MLJ. (Crl.) 633: I.L.R. (1961) Mad. 1041: A.I.R. 1962 Mad. 85 (F.B.) and in Shaik Dawood v. Collector of Customs, Madras Shaik Dawood v. Collector of Customs, Madras I.L.R. (1964) 1 Mad. 555: (1964) 2 MLJ. 423 : (1964) MLJ. (Crl.) 587: A.I.R. 1965 Mad. 215 (Division Bench). Further, the (1985) 1 MLJ (Crl) 148 at 150 Supreme Court has held in Vallabhdas Liladhar v. Assistant Collector of Customs Vallabhdas Liladhar v. Assistant Collector of Customs (1965) 1 S.C.J. 208: (1965) MLJ. (Crl.) 98: A.I.R. 1965 S.C. 481 that Section 186 of the Sea Customs Act was meant for permitting prosecution in addition to action under the Act in the shape of confiscation, penalty, etc. Therefore, the levying of penalty orconfiscation has nothing to do with the prosecution now pending before the Criminal Court. 5. The result is, there are no grounds to quash the prosecution or interfere in the course of justice. Ail the petitions are accordingly dismissed. The stay already granted is vacated. V.K. ----- Petitions dismissed.