2022 (2) TMI 1465 - HC - FEMA

Charge punishable u/s 56 of FERA for violation of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) and 63 - acquittal of the accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate for violation - HELD THAT - It is needless to say that confessional statement is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is corroborative in nature. Moreover, when a confessional statement is retracted its evidentiary value loses in view of the fact that the Court is required to weigh the probative value of two statements one in the nature of confession and another in the nature of retraction. During trial of the case, the accused took a plea that his confessional statement was recorded by force and coercion. It is also specifically pleaded by the accused that he accumulated the seized money from his construction business. In order to prove that he is engaged in construction business, the respondent submitted series of documents during trial of the case. The Learned Trial Court accepted the defence version. As needless to say that in the instant case two views are apparent on the face of the record. First, the allegation of accumulation of money by way of illegal foreign exchange and payment of money illegally to different persons and secondly, the accused accumulated money by way of construction business. It is no longer res integra that when two views are possible, the view that help the accused and in favour of him shall be accepted. For the reasons stated above, no merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on contest. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Learned Magistrate, 11th Court at Calcutta is affirmed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against acquittal under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for violation of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) and 63.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate challenging the acquittal of the accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate for violating the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA). The case revolves around the accused allegedly accumulating Rs. 21.80 lakhs through illegal conversion of Bangladeshi currency to Indian currency without the required license under FERA. The complaint was lodged by an Enforcement Officer, and the case was sent for trial to the Metropolitan Magistrate.

During the trial, the accused denied the charges and claimed the seized money was earned through construction business. The Enforcement Directorate argued that the accused had confessed to engaging in illegal foreign exchange activities, receiving commissions, and making payments under the instruction of Bangladeshi nationals. The Directorate contended that the accused failed to prove his alibi of earning through construction business.

The defense argued that the prosecution's case lacked independent witnesses to prove the search and seizure of the currency notes. The accused presented evidence showing his involvement in a construction business and the legitimate sources of the seized money. The defense also highlighted the legal provisions of FERA prohibiting unauthorized foreign exchange transactions.

The judgment emphasized the conflicting versions presented by the prosecution and defense, where the accused's construction business explanation was accepted by the Trial Court. The Court noted the importance of considering all evidence and viewpoints in a case, especially when two plausible interpretations exist. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the acquittal of the accused by the Metropolitan Magistrate.

In conclusion, the judgment underscores the need for thorough evaluation of evidence, including confessional statements, alibis, and corroborative materials in cases involving FERA violations. It highlights the principle of accepting the view favorable to the accused when multiple interpretations are possible. The decision emphasizes the importance of substantiating allegations with concrete evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution in establishing violations under FERA.