9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the adjudication order imposing a penalty for contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FER Act, 1973. 2. Admissibility and voluntariness of the appellant's confession. 3. Requirement and denial of cross-examination of witnesses. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Adjudication Order: The appellant challenged the Adjudication Order No. ADE/AC/IV/03/99 dated 30.7.1999, which imposed a penalty of Rs. 12 lakhs for contravening Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the FER Act, 1973. The appellant was accused of receiving Rs. 80 lakhs on the instructions of one Unnipappa and distributing Rs. 79,75,000 to different persons. The Tribunal, while disposing of the application for dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty, allowed partial dispensation and directed the appellant to deposit 50% of the penalty. The Delhi High Court later reduced this amount to 10%, which the appellant complied with. The Tribunal affirmed the impugned order, stating that it did not suffer from any illegality and the penalty imposed was appropriate and not excessive. 2. Admissibility and Voluntariness of the Appellant's Confession: The main evidence against the appellant included a retracted confession, recovered chits, and statements from seven persons who received money. The appellant argued that the confession was obtained under threat and coercion. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in State (NCT) Delhi v. Navjot Sandhu, which outlines that a confession must be voluntary and true to be admissible. The Tribunal noted that there was no substantial evidence to support the appellant's claim of coercion. It emphasized that the burden of proving coercion lies with the appellant, and in its absence, the confession is presumed voluntary and true. The Tribunal also referred to K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. UOI, highlighting that the voluntary nature of a statement is crucial, and the appellant failed to establish any improper means used to obtain the confession. 3. Requirement and Denial of Cross-Examination of Witnesses: The appellant requested cross-examination of witnesses who allegedly received money or worked as investigators. The Tribunal held that the demand for cross-examination must be supported by sound reasons. It cited the judgment in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd. v. Ramakrishna Rice Mills, which states that cross-examination is not obligatory without valid reasons. The Tribunal concluded that the denial of cross-examination alone does not invalidate the impugned order, referencing the Kerala High Court's judgment in Director Enforcement Directorate FER Act. v. Alfred James Fernandez, which does not rule out the arrival of guilt without cross-examination. The Tribunal maintained that principles of natural justice are flexible and can be adapted to circumstances, and quasi-criminal cases depend on facts rather than precedents. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the impugned order and the penalty imposed. The appellant was directed to deposit the remaining penalty amount within seven days, failing which the Enforcement Directorate could recover it according to the law.
|
