Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1981 (2) TMI HC This
Issues Involved:
1. Admissibility of Statements under Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. 2. Equating Enforcement Directorate Officers with Police Officers. 3. Validity of Retraction of Confession. 4. Fairness in Adjudication Proceedings. Summary: Admissibility of Statements under Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act: The appellant argued that his statement dated September 27, 1972, is a "confession" hit by sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court examined whether the officer of the Enforcement Directorate, who issued a notice u/s 19F of the Act and recorded the statement, is a police officer as contemplated under section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court concluded that an officer under the Act is not a police officer for the purposes of section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Furthermore, the court noted that on the date the statement was recorded, the appellant was not a person accused of any offence, thus section 25 of the Evidence Act does not apply. Similarly, section 24 of the Evidence Act, which deals with confessions made by an accused person, was also deemed inapplicable as the appellant was not an accused person at the time of the statement. Equating Enforcement Directorate Officers with Police Officers: The court analyzed the powers of an officer under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and concluded that such an officer is not equivalent to a police officer. The court referred to previous Supreme Court rulings which held that customs officers under the Customs Act are not police officers within the purview of section 25 of the Evidence Act. The court applied the same analogy to officers under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Validity of Retraction of Confession: The appellant contended that his statement was retracted the very next day, and thus should not have been relied upon. The court noted that the Additional Director did not acknowledge the immediate retraction but the Appellate Board did. The court found no merit in the argument that the retraction was not considered, as the Appellate Board had duly noted it. The court also examined the appellant's claim that his statement was obtained through coercion and found inconsistencies in his allegations, ultimately concluding that the statement was voluntary. Fairness in Adjudication Proceedings: The appellant argued that he was not made aware of his father's statement and that it was not among the documents inspected. The court found no evidence to support this claim, noting that the appellant did not raise this issue before the Appellate Board or in the memorandum of appeal. The court emphasized the importance of fairness in adjudication proceedings, suggesting that officers should provide a list of documents or copies of documents relied upon in show-cause notices to ensure the person facing adjudication can properly defend themselves. Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the findings and penalty imposed under section 23(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The court also highlighted the need for procedural fairness in adjudication proceedings, suggesting improvements to ensure transparency and adequate notice of evidence to the person facing adjudication.
|