1999 (8) TMI 803 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues:
Conviction and sentence under section 8(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Burden of proof in possession of foreign exchange exceeding a certain value - Reduction of default sentence for non-payment of fine.

Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentence under Section 8(1) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act:
The petitioner filed a revision against the conviction and sentence imposed under section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. The petitioner was convicted for possessing U.S. dollars without permission from the Reserve Bank of India. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months along with a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed, leading to the revision.

2. Burden of Proof in Possession of Foreign Exchange:
The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence to establish that the accused, a Sri Lankan national, was found in possession of U.S. dollars without a valid license or document. The burden of proof in such cases lies on the accused to demonstrate lawful possession. The petitioner claimed to be a carrier of the currency, intended for delivering it to another person for a jewelry shop. However, the burden of proof was not satisfactorily discharged by the petitioner, leading to the upheld conviction under section 8(1) of the Act.

3. Reduction of Default Sentence for Non-Payment of Fine:
The petitioner, who had already undergone 18 months of substantive imprisonment, was directed to pay a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs. As the petitioner was unable to pay the fine, he was undergoing a default sentence of one year. The petitioner argued that the fine was excessive and sought leniency. The court considered the value of the seized U.S. dollars and reduced the default sentence to six months instead of one year. The total period of imprisonment served by the petitioner was 24 months, leading to a partial allowance of the revision with respect to the default sentence reduction.

In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the revision in part by reducing the default sentence for non-payment of fine to six months instead of one year, while dismissing the revision in all other aspects.