9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out by a gang of some offenders and to facilitate such transactions aid of many persons including the detenue was taken. It is not necessary to set in detail the modus operandi which was adopted by those persons as the same is recorded in the detention order dated 25.11.2003. It would be sufficient to reproduce paragraphs 41-43 of the said detention order which capture the essence of the matter and the role of the detenue: "41. From the facts discussed above, it is clear that Shri K. P. Abdul Majeed of Calicut and his son Shri Asarulla Rakka Khan working in Dubai had organised a racket for transferring funds form Dubai to India through unauthorised channels. The said Shri K.P. Abdul Majeed engaged S/Shri Surendran, Bhupendra Thakkar and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulations of the country from time to time. Details of the transactions hitherto noticed are given in Annexure -II. 42. From the above, it is seen that you were actively involved in the illegal transactions of receiving and disbursing money on behalf of a person residing outside the country, amounting to Rs. 40.52 crores during the period from and June 2000 to Jan. 2002, as discussed in paragraph 7 and 32 above. 43. In view of the foregoing, I have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that you had been engaging yourself in activities prejudicial to the augmentation and conservation of the foreign exchange resources of the country. Considering the nature and gravity of the offence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transaction would not amount to any offence under Section 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. We, in the present proceedings, are concerned with the order of detention passed against the detenue. It has come on record and noted in the order of detention that large sums of money were received in the said bank account which was opened in the name of the detenue and the money which was disbursed from this account amounted to Rs. 40.52 crores. It was further found by the detaining authority that the detenue was also one of the persons involved in Hawala transactions which were carried out. In such circumstances, satisfaction of the detaining authority to detain the detenue cannot be faulted with. We have gone through the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
