Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases FEMA FEMA + HC FEMA - 2009 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2009 (5) TMI 530 - HC - FEMA


Issues Involved:
1. Conviction based solely on retracted confession without corroborating evidence.
2. Burden of proof for voluntary nature of retracted confessional statement.
3. Timeliness of the revision petition.
4. Justification of the penalty imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction Based Solely on Retracted Confession Without Corroborating Evidence:
The appellant challenged the conviction under section 9(1)(a) of FERA, arguing that it was based solely on a retracted confession without any corroborating evidence. The appellant cited the Supreme Court's rulings in *Vinod Solanki v. Union of India* and *Noor Aga v. State of Punjab*, which held that retracted confessions must be substantially corroborated by independent and cogent evidence. The Tribunal's reliance on the confession without corroboration was deemed insufficient for conviction.

2. Burden of Proof for Voluntary Nature of Retracted Confessional Statement:
The appellant argued that once a confession is retracted, the burden of proving that the confession was made voluntarily lies with the prosecution. The Tribunal failed to provide evidence that the confession was voluntary and not obtained under duress. The Supreme Court's rulings emphasized that the prosecution must demonstrate the voluntary nature of the confession, considering the circumstances of retraction, which was not done in this case.

3. Timeliness of the Revision Petition:
The appellant contended that the revision petition filed by the respondents was not within the limitation period. However, the Tribunal held that no limitation period is prescribed under section 52(4) of FERA for filing a revision petition, making the petition timely and valid.

4. Justification of the Penalty Imposed:
The appellant argued that the penalty of Rs. 3,00,000 imposed by the Tribunal was unjustified, given the lack of corroborative evidence and the retracted confession. The Tribunal's decision to impose the penalty was based on the confession, which was not supported by independent evidence. The High Court found that the penalty was unjustified and illegal due to the reliance on the retracted confession without corroboration.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order dated 30-11-2006. The appellant's conviction and penalty were deemed unsustainable due to the reliance on a retracted confession without corroborating evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the voluntary nature of the confession. The appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits, and the interim orders were made absolute.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates