9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 568X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng with two independent witnesses intercepted truck No. DL-IG-A-2085 on 18-2-1997 at 3.45 pm at Chandaul Bazar, District Varanasi. After disclosing their identity, they apprised the driver of the truck of their intention to take search. The driver, on interrogation, disclosed his name as Sattan Rai, R/o Vill. Piprahi, P.O. Ratanpur. Similarly, the cleaner disclosed his name as Navi Lal Mehta, r/o Vill. Bhagvanpur, Distt. Supaul, Bihar. Another occupant of the truck, revealed his name as Raju Yadav. All the three were thoroughly interrogated and the truck was taken to the office of the DRI, Varanasi and on search, it was found to contain small packages of silk yarn which were fitted below the wooden plates at the bottom of the truck. The cab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been assailed before me by the learned counsel is that the statement of the co-accused Mithilesh Chowdhury alias Raju Yadav, could not be legally used against the appellant and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. But, in my opinion, this contention of the learned counsel is devoid of any legal force. During the adjudication proceedings, appellant himself inspite of affording him number of opportunities, did not appear before the adjudicating authority, he was served with the show cause notice and he was apprised of the statement made against him by Mithilesh Chowdhury alias Raju Yadav. He only sent his reply to that notice, but did not appear in person before the adjudicating authority. Even in his reply, he did not spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly inculpates not only himself but also the petitioner. It can, therefore, be used as substantive evidence connecting the petitioner with the contravention by exporting foreign currency out of India. 6. In view of this position of law, the statement of co-accused Mithilesh Chowdhury alias Raju Yadav, had been rightly used against the appellant being not exculpatory but inculpatory, and that the appellant did not had the courage to rebut that statement by appearing before the adjudicating authority personally. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence produced before the adjudicating authority by the Revenue, the impugned order of the Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
