9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (2) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as certain documents were seized. On the same day, Saidali gave a statement admitting that he had been sending money through unauthorised agents to his son, the present appellant, between 1966 and 1972. Subsequently, the appellant was served with notice under section 19F of the Act for the purpose of recording his statement. The statement was so recorded on September 27, 1972, the appellant admitted that he had been receiving such payments from abroad through unauthorised agents. On the next day, he appears to have sent a letter to the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, raising objections in regard to this statement. As per memorandum dated August 7, 1973, the Additional Director attached to the Directorate at New Delhi issued a show-cause notice to the appellant (as well as to Saidali) alleging that he had been receiving such payments as alleged in contravention of section 5(1)( aa ) of the Act without any authority and rendering himself liable under section 23(1)( a ) of the Act and directing him to show cause why adjudication proceedings under section 23D of the Act should not be held against him and why Rs. 31,000 blocked in his S.B.A/C. No. 4 of 1970 with the Catholic Syr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notes were found in the house. Currency notes are said to belong to Saidali. On the same day, he gave a statement wherein he (Saidali) stated that he has been sending money un-authorisedly to his son, the present appellant. In view of this statement, a notice was issued under section 19F of the Act to the appellant. In response, he appeared and gave a statement on September 27, 1972, wherein he made specific admission of the receipt of money through unauthorised sources under instructions from his father. If the contents of the statements given by the appellant and his father are to be accepted as true, there can be no doubt that the contravention alleged has been established beyond all doubt. However, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, these statements are inadmissible and, at any rate, should not have been relied upon. The appellant gave his statement on September 27, 1972. There is no dispute that on September 28, 1972, he sent a letter to the Deputy Director at Madras raising an objection about the statement. According to the appellant, this is a case where the "confession" was "retracted" on the very next day and this was not noticed by the Additional Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce he considers necessary to give evidence and produce documents in connection with any enquiry being held under the Act. It also provides that the person so summoned shall be bound to attend and produce the documents and state the truth upon any subject in respect of which he is examined. The proceedings shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding for the purpose of sections 193 and 228 of the IPC. Section 19G authorises an officer to retain documents produced in the course of the proceedings. An officer under the Act is not an officer in charge of a police station. No doubt he has certain powers which are similar to the powers of a police officer. The Act does not confer on him the power to lodge a report before a competent magistrate under section 173 of the Cr. PC, 1973. The only way an officer under the Act could approach a magistrate is under the proviso to section 23D(1) of the Act, and that could only be by filing a complaint. He is not competent to submit a report under section 173 of the Code. The powers vesting in such an officer under the Act are not sufficient to equate him with a police officer. Powers of investigation as contemplated under the Cr. PC are not confer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tainted evidence, requires some corroboration to satisfy the conscience of the court that the statement is true, will not apply to the statement recorded under the provisions of the Act. However, this does not mean that such a statement can be freely relied on like any other piece of evidence in. adjudication proceedings under the Act. It is true that whenever a statement is challenged as having been obtained by unfair and unlawful means, law cannot presume that it has been so obtained. It must be shown to have been obtained by such unfair means and is not voluntary. In such a case, the contents of the statement can have no value. Even when, as a matter of fact, it is not shown that the statement is so vitiated, the authority, which is called upon to accept the statement as evidence, must bear in mind the possibility of such unfair means having been used and approach this evidence with caution. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the statement of the appellant was recorded by the use of force or coercion. Such a ground has been taken in reply to the show-cause notice where the appellant stated as follows: "After a few days I received a summons to be prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been recorded by an officer of a fairly high standing. Courts will not readily infer that any unfair means has been used to record a statement unless there is some material or circumstance which would lend strength to such a case. The way in which the appellant has been treated would indicate the contra. He was not questioned immediately after his house was searched. He was given due notice or summons to appear to give a statement. On the first day he was not asked any questions. It was only the next day that he was questioned. Nothing was done in a hurry. The contents of the statement also tally with the contents of the statement which his father gave earlier. There is nothing to indicate that the statement was not voluntary. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended before us that his client was not made aware of Saidali's statement and the same was not put to him. Learned counsel went to the extent of stating that the statement was not among the documents of which inspection was allowed to the appellant. If this contention is true, it is a matter of which serious notice has to be taken. However, we find that no such complaint was made before the Appellate Boar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... However, we have gone into the matter out of deference to the strenuous and vehement arguments of Shri Shamsuddin, counsel for the appellant. The order of the Appellate Board does not deserve interference. Before parting with the case we would like to dwell upon an important aspect of the adjudication proceedings. We have rejected the contention raised at the Bar by the learned counsel for the appellant that his client was not informed about the statement of Saidali and that it has been used against him in such a manner as to take him by surprise. We have rejected this argument not on merits but on the ground that such a contention has not been taken before the Appellate Board or in the memorandum of appeal filed in this court. We deplore any possibility of any material or evidence being used against a person facing adjudication proceedings without such material being put to him fairly and squarely. The material against him must be put before him in such a manner that he can properly defend himself. It has to be remembered that the proceedings are quasi-criminal in character and penalties which can be imposed against such a person are really serious. Unfortunately the rules deali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
