9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or contravention of each of the above said sections. ( 2. ) THE facts of the case are briefly as follows: THE appellant received a total sum of ₹ 20,000 in two installments of ₹ 10,000 each from a local person and disbursed a sum of ₹ 17,282 out of that amount, under instructions from his younger brother Manickam of Singapore, a person resident outside India, without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. THE appellant's house was searched on 5-8-1973, resulting in the seizure of Indian currency valued ₹ 2,718, two chits containing some writings, one letter dated 3-8-1975, written by the appellant but not posted and one empty registered Airmail cover addressed to one Doraiswami by one Arumugham of Singapor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... MAS/74 (SON II) dated 15-7-1974 for contravention of section 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in having made a total payment of ₹ 17,282 to persons in India during 1973, by order of Sri R. Manickam of Singapore, a person resident outside India. (c) T.4/553/MAS/73 (SON) dt. 10,2-1975 for contravention of section 5(1)(aa) read with section 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947, in having attempted to receive ₹ 20,000 by order of R. Manickam of Singapore, a person resident outside India. THE Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, found the first two charges proved and accordingly imposed a total penalty of ₹ 10,000, and dropped the remaining charges. On appeal, after hearing the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Appellate Board was not only carried away by wealth of statement but also by the fact that the retraction was extremely belated. In fact the show cause notice was issued one year after the search and the retraction wag made five months later. From the little documents seized there was also ground for the Appellate authority of first instance as well as the Appellate Board to come to the conclusion that the appellant has contravened the provisions of Section 5(i)(c) of the Act. In fact, the Supreme Court in the decision relied upon by the appellant itself has observed that no hard and fast rule can be laid down regarding the necessity of corroboration in the case of a retracted confession in order to base a conviction thereon. We a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received just prior to 3-8-1973. Learned counsel for the respondents had also been asked to point out where in the statement exactly there was material to show that these two installments were received by the appellant on behalf of his brother. Though there are many details relating to other amounts of money received at different points of time from his brother Manickam he was not able to show anything in the statement disclosing the receipt of two installments of ₹ 10,000 each just prior to 3-8-1973. Therefore it is clear that the penalty has been levied in this case under section 5(1)(aa) of the Act without any finding based on adequate materials available on record to support the finding. This point of the appellant is therefore a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
