9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of committing an offence under section 9(1)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. Validity of the statement made by the petitioner before the enforcement authorities. 3. Jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 51 of the Act. 4. Request for release of seized funds by the petitioner. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged the proceedings initiated against him under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, alleging no offence under section 9(1)(b) of the Act. The Enforcement Directorate seized a sum of Rs. 1,69,350 and letters from the petitioner's brother during a raid at the petitioner's premises. The petitioner was served a show-cause notice to justify the funds and letters. The petitioner contended that the seized items did not constitute an offence, but a statement by the petitioner admitting to receiving the money from a stranger on his brother's instructions formed the basis for the adjudication proceedings. 2. The petitioner argued that his statement admitting to receiving the funds was made under duress and should not be considered as evidence against him. However, the court highlighted that the Act provides a different procedure where statements made to investigating officers can be used in adjudication proceedings. The petitioner's claim of duress needed to be substantiated before the adjudicating officer, and the court could not issue a writ of prohibition solely based on the allegation of duress without a lack of jurisdiction. 3. The court emphasized that to challenge the initiation of proceedings under section 51 of the Act, the petitioner must demonstrate a total lack of jurisdiction. If the statement made by the petitioner is sufficient to implicate him in an offence under the Act, the question of jurisdiction does not arise. The petitioner could raise concerns about duress and statement admissibility during adjudication proceedings and appeal to higher authorities under the Act for fairness. 4. The petitioner also requested the release of a portion of the seized funds, but the court rejected the plea. The court noted that unless the petitioner provided a bank guarantee equal to six times the seized amount, the funds could not be released. The petitioner's claim that the money was intended for constructing a house for his brother rather than business purposes did not sway the court's decision. In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitioner's plea for a writ of prohibition and the request for the return of the seized funds due to the lack of a sufficient bank guarantee.
|
