9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Appeal against adjudication order imposing penalty for contravention of FER Act provisions - Allegation of unauthorized sale and purchase of foreign exchange - Retraction of confessional statement by the appellant - Corroboration of confessional statement with documentary evidence and witness testimony - Legal considerations regarding retracted confessional statements Analysis: The judgment pertains to an appeal against an adjudication order imposing a penalty on the appellant for contravention of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation (FER) Act. The appellant, A. Natrajan, was penalized for purchasing and selling foreign exchange in an unauthorized manner, deviating from the rates prescribed by the RBI. The appellant's confessional statement acknowledging the transactions was a crucial piece of evidence in the case. Despite the retraction of the confessional statement by the appellant, the Tribunal found that the retraction was delayed and lacked sufficient explanation. The statement was corroborated by the recovery of foreign currency and documents from another individual present during the search, Thiagarajan. The appellant argued that the confessional statement was obtained under threat and coercion, seeking to invalidate it. However, the Tribunal cited legal precedents to emphasize that mere allegations of coercion are insufficient to deem a statement involuntary. The judgment highlighted the importance of corroboration and cited previous cases where retracted confessions were considered admissible if found to be true and corroborated by other evidence. In this case, the confessional statement was supported by Thiagarajan's testimony and the recovery of foreign exchange and documents, providing minute details that were deemed credible. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the adjudicating officer's decision, finding the appellant guilty of the contravention and imposing a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh. The judgment concluded that there was no basis to interfere with the findings, as the evidence and circumstances supported the penalty. The appellant was directed to pay the penalty within a specified timeframe, failing which the respondent could recover the amount through legal means. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lacking merit, affirming the penalty imposed on the appellant.
|
