9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the present appellant. 3. The facts in brief is that the information was received by the Mumbai Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate from the UCO Bank, Nariman Point, Mumbai to the effect that one Shri Ashwin S. Shah, Proprietor of M/s. Shine Star Exports was having an account with the said Bank and the said account was found to be in fictitious. It was alleged that present appellant has deposited an amount of Rs. 35,15,000/- in cash in the said account incidentally of Al Nazir Ghilani who was resident of Dubai and thus he as violated the provisions of FERA. A show cause notice to that effect was served on the appellant and the Adjudicating Authority after adjudicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... infected. This approach of the Adjudicating Authority is not in accordance with the pray laid down by the Apex Court in case of Vinod Solanki (supra). In the aforesaid case the Apex Court has laid down that the burden of proving the fact that the statement recorded in Police custody was voluntary is on the department. In the present case the department has not laid any evidence to show that the statement was not recorded under clause or completion. 5. In the Vinod Solanki s case the Apex Court has laid down that the retracted statement cannot be made the sole basis of imposing penalty under FERA. In such relation this Tribunal will have to find doubt whether there is any evidence to corroborated the retracted statement. From the evidence ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that his landlord the Trust has taken eviction and proceeding against him. He got the premises vacated from Mrs. Meena M. Vakharia who is wife of one of the noticee Sh. Mahendra Vakharia and while vacating they left some documents in the flat which were seized by the Police. This reply clearly an admission of the search and seizure of the documents. 6. Section 72 of the FERA gives a presumption about the centered and safe part of such document unless contrary is proved. In such circumstances if it is held that mere retracted statement of the appellant cannot be made. The sole basis of the penalty in the present case the retracted statement of the appellant are corroborated by the recovery of the counter foil of the deposit slips of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
