9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (3) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by Shri Rajan, the delay is condone. G/Ref/Misc./226/88/MAS G/Ref/Stay/360/88/MAS. - The prayer in the Miscellaneous application G/Ref/Misc/226/88 and also in G/Ref/Stay/360/88 is for stay of the operation of the impugned order of the Tribunal pending disposal of the Reference Applications. 2. Since we propose to dispose of the Reference Applications themselves today with the consent of the parties, these applications are dismissed. G/Ref/91/88/MAS G/Ref/16/88/MAS. - The Reference Applications are directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 29-10-1987 in Order No. 767/87. The applicants have set out the following questions as Questions of Law in the Reference Applications : I. Whether the Hon ble Tribunal acted in accordanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could be treated as confessional of guilt by the Appellate Tribunal. 2. Shri Parameswaran, the learned Counsel for the applicants, made general submissions on the Questions set out in the Reference Applications and mainly contended that the admission made by the learned Consultant at the time when the appeals were argued before the Tribunal are not legally correct and proper and a Consultant under the Tribunal s Rules by filing a Letter of Authorisation cannot claim the right and privileges of an Advocate and, therefore, the plea of the learned Consultant in appeal that the applicants were pleading guilty in regard to possession of two bars of primary gold to the charges levelled under the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 is ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have already given reasons for accepting the inculpatory statements of the appellants, which would clearly establish that the gold bars were of foreign origin. Apart from it we also find that V.K. Raghavan has given a statement on 23-2-1984 admitting the fact that the gold bars were smuggled by him into the country from Dubai and sold to appellant Damodaran Nair. The fact remains that Raghavan did not retract the statement till 20-1-1985. Apart from it the inculpatory statement of the appellants in this regard corroborated by the statement of Raghavan has further been corroborated by the statements of Murleedharan, son of appellant Damodaran Nair, and his employee C.V. Mani both of whom admittedly did not retract their statements at all. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making submissions before a court or quasi-judicial Tribunal from that of an Advocate and an Advocate would have the privilege to plead guilty on behalf of his/her client, which privilege a Consultant under the Rules of the Tribunal would not have in the absence of specific orders cannot be countenanced. Notwithstanding the difference in general between an Advocate and a Consultant so far as a quasi-judicial Tribunal is concerned if a Consultant is authorised to appear on behalf of a client he is entitled to put forth a plea much the same way as an Advocate would be entitled to urge and plead on behalf of his client. The ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel, in our view would appear to be more against the applicants rather than in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
