Judgment : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Thiruvenkatachari, Advocate for the petitioners, the Court made the following order : The accused 1 to 8 in E.O.C.C. No. 355 of 1993 on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I.) Egmore, has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. praying to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same. 2.The short facts are : The complaint is for offence under Section 57 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (which I shall refer to as the Act) on the allegation that the Additional Director of Enforcement initiated adjudication proceedings against the accused for contravention of Section 18(2) of the Act to the extent of Rs. 1, 60, 950.90. The Additional Director of Enforcement in his order dated 24-4-1991, imposed a total penalty of Rs. 50, 000/- on the accused firm and its partners and had directed them to deposit the penalty imposed, within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order, at the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras, within the jurisdiction of the Court below. The said order was served on the accused firm on 10-5-1991. The entire penalty of Rs. 50, 000/- was not paid by the accused firm, in spite of reminders. Failure to pay as above, is an offence punishable under Section 57 of the Act. 3.Mr. V. Thiruvenkatachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are living at Bangalore and even if an appeal is filed against the order imposing penalty, it has to be filed in the High Court of Karnataka, as per Section 54 of the Act and the Court below has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 3.Mr. V. Thiruvenkatachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners are living at Bangalore and even if an appeal is filed against the order imposing penalty, it has to be filed in the High Court of Karnataka, as per Section 54 of the Act and the Court below has got no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 57 of the Act, needs extraction and it reads as follows :"Penalty for contravention of order made by adjudicating officer, Appellate Board and High Court :- If any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the adjudicating officer or the Appellate Board or the High Court or fails to comply with any of his or its directions or orders, he shall, upon conviction by a court, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. The allegations made in para-3 of the complaint are also relevant. It reads that in the Adjudication Order passed by the Additional Director of Enforcement, the said Officer, had directed the petitioners to deposit the penalty imposed within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said order, at the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras within the jurisdiction of the court below. Thus the specific direction was to deposit the penalty in the office of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras. As per Section 57 of the Act, if any person fails to pay the penalty imposed by the Adjudication Officer, or fails to comply with any of his directions, the offence is committed. Here the direction was to deposit the penalty amount at Madras. The non-compliance of the said direction is stated to be the offence under Section 57 of the Act. As such, only on the non-payment at Madras, the offence is said to have been committed. As such the court below has got jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. 4.The recourse to Section 54 of the Act will not help the petitioner any way. As per the proviso to Section 54, the appeal shall lie to the High Court, and the High Court means the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. 4.The recourse to Section 54 of the Act will not help the petitioner any way. As per the proviso to Section 54, the appeal shall lie to the High Court, and the High Court means the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. So, if the petitioners are living at Bangalore or carry on business at Bangalore, the High Court of Karnataka would be the High Court to which the appeal is to be preferred. Even if the appeal to the High Court is dismissed, then the direction in the Adjudication Order will stand and if it gives a direction that penalty should be paid at Madras, the non-compliance of the direction alone gives rise to the offence and as such, the court below will have jurisdiction. Thus, I am clear that recourse to Section 54 of the Act will in no way help the petitioners. 5.Taking this view of the matter, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and therefore this petition fails and shall stand dismissed.