9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at statement, the appellant admitted that the said amount of Rs. 60,000 was received by him from a person resident in India under instructions from his relative resident of Singapore, Mohd. Jihnah, earlier the same day. On the said basis only, he was charged with the contravention under section 9(1)( b ) of the Act, according to which, inter alia, no person in India, save in accordance with the exemption granted by the Reserve Bank, shall "receive otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India". A show-cause notice dated February 14, 1985, was issued to the appellant regarding the above said contravention. In the said show-cause notice reliance was placed on the confessional statement given by the appellant on January 24, .1985, stating further that the said document could be inspected at the office of the Deputy Director, after fixing an appointment to that effect To the said show-cause notice he gave his reply dated June 4, 1985, denying the charge and pleading that the said sum of Rs. 60,000 was given to him by his brother, Asaf AH, for being delivered to his brother, Jalal, in discharge of the debt due fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed the abovesaid confiscation order. The relevant observations in the said order of the first authority regarding the abovesaid retracted statement are as follows : "Though it is a retracted statement, I consider that the same can be relied upon in the proceedings-for the following reasons : It is an admitted fact that the abovesaid lodge belonging to two non-residents, K. K. I. Mohd. Ali and K. K. I. Sowkath All of Malaysia is taken on lease by his father and the said lodge, is being run by him (appellant). He is assisting his father in running the lodge. On January 24, 1985, when Shri A. Abdulla gave the statement, he made revelations in his statement that the sum of Rs. 60,000 was received-by him as per the arrangements made by his relative, Shri Mohd. Jinna of Singapore, who is doing business there. This fact was within the special knowledge of Shri A. Abdulla and has not emanated from any other source or from the officers. If the officers wanted to get a coerced statement they would have put into the mouth of Shri A. Abdulla, the names of the two non-residents disclosed by Shri A. Abdulla in the earlier part of his statement. While he was asked to explain about the sourc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... night of January 24, 1985, except the allegation made in the letter of retraction dated January 25, 1985. When the statement was recorded on January 24, 1985, under coercion and torture at about ITO.30 p.m. as mentioned in the accident register entry referred to above, ft is not shown as to why the appellant would have been detained by the respondent's officers during the whole night of January 24,1985, and then right up to 4 p.m. on January 25, 1985, as alleged in the letter of retraction. The allegation appears to be wholly improbable. It is true that the appellant was examined in the Government hospital at 4.12 p.m. on January 25, 1985, when the injuries referred to above were found on his perrson. In case the appellant was not detained by the respondent's officers till 4 p.m. on January 25, 1985, as discussed above, the said injuries found on his body at 4.12 p.m. that day could be of no consequence regarding the voluntary nature of the statement dated January 24,1985, recorded at about 10.30 p.m. The nature of the said injuries also could not rule out the possibility of the same being self-inflicted or caused in any other manner ... it was not even suggested that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the respondents also could not point out that any fresh summons was subsequently issued). Learned counsel for the appellant also points out that though in the abovesaid letter dated February 2, 1985, it is stated that a copy of the abovesaid confessional statement dated January 24, 1985, would be furnished to the appellant after completion of the investigation, such a copy was not given at all/given along with the above referred to show-cause notice dated February 14, 1985. He further pointed out that the said copy was given only later. Further, the reasoning of the Appellate Board that the abovesaid injuries could be self-inflicted cannot at all be accepted. It was not so stated even by the first authority. Learned counsel also points out that the observation of the Appellate Board that it was not pleaded by the appellant that he did not even know a person by name Mohd. Jinnah of, Singapore, is not correct. He points out that even in the reply to the show-cause notice. It is specifically stated, as already mentioned, that the appellant is "not at all aware of any person by name Mohd. Jinnah in Singapore". No doubt, such statement was not made in the above referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to keep the same in his pocket, is of no significance since no action at all was taken against the appellant in that regard. As against these weighty and convincing arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent could not argue seriously contra particularly in the light of the above referred to features of the case and the above referred to settled decisions in this regard. It is clear from the abovesaid features pointed out and the decisions cited that both the authorities below have grossly erred in law in solely relying on the abovesaid alleged confessional statement on the ground that it is voluntary. In the light of the immediate retraction of the said statement and in the light of the abovesaid accident register and injury report and other features of the case, it would to be indeed erroneous in law to hold that the abovesaid confessional statement was voluntary and true. It is also significant to note that the Enforcement Officer and three other officers with him, against whom serious allegations have been made by the appellant about the ill-treatment meted out by them to him in extracting the said confessional statement, have not even c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
