9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riefly stated, are as follows : The petitioner is a civil contractor residing at Bajpe close to Marigalore city in Karnataka State. It suffices to say that he has a brother, admittedly, working in Dubai at Bank of Pakistan in the United Arab Emirates. On April 12, 1989, the Enforcement Director, Government of India, Southern Zone, Madras, the second respondent herein, and the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Southern Zone, Madras, conducted a raid and search of the residential premises of the petitioner at Bajpe. They seized a sum of Rs. 1,69,350 found in the steel cupboard in his house as well as three letters written by the petitioner's brother to his father in Konkani language. Thereafter, he was served with a show-cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re is no material implicating him for the commission of any offence under section 9(1)(b) of the Act. No doubt, there is an allegation that the statement was obtained under duress. But in what manner the duress was practised or brought about is not stated. No doubt, under the normal criminal jurisprudence obtaining in this country, a statement made to the investigating officer may not be made use of against the person unless it is a judicial confession made in accordance with law in that behalf in a trial for a criminal offence. But the Act is an exception and a different procedure is prescribed in section 51 of the Act read with the Rules made there under and an appeal is provided to the Board under section 52 of the Act. Section 53 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finds in favour of the Enforcement Directorate, then that money is liable to confiscation and penalty of five times that amount which has been seized is liable to be imposed. Therefore, offering a bank guarantee for Rs. 1,60,000 would not be sufficient to enable this court to make a direction to return the money to him because he is carrying on his business as a building contractor. But then his statement was made under duress or voluntarily, that the money was not to be used for business but for construction of a house for his brother. Unless the petitioner is prepared to furnish a bank guarantee for a sum equal to six times the amount seized, this court ought not to direct the release of the same. For the above reasons, the player for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
