9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (9) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sum of ₹ 15,000/- which was taken from the person of the appellant on 10-5-1975 when he was apprehended on suspicion by the Enforcement Directorate. 2. The appellant and one Varadaraj were found to carry a sum of ₹ 15,000/- and ₹ 10,000/- respectively when they were apprehended near the Customs House, Madras on 10-5-1973. On suspicion that they were involved in foreign exchange violations, the amounts held by them were seized and statements from each of them were taken. In the statement given by the appellant, dated 10-5-1973 , he has stated that he came to Madras on the instructions of one Manickam Reddiar of Gopalapuram in Virudhunagar and received from one Sri Shafeek at No. 42 Moore Street, Madras a sum of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nforcement that contravention of S. 5(i)(aa) of the Act has been established in this case. 4. In this appeal, directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Appellate Board, learned counsel for the appellate contends that even if the appellants statement dated 10-5-1973 is taken as the basis, ignoring his retraction later, an offence under Sec. 5(i)(aa) of the Act cannot be taken to have been established: that the statement merely refers to an instruction given by one Manickam Reddiar of Gopalapuram in Virudhunagar to receive the payment and that the said Reddiar, on whose instructions the payment has been received by the appellant, cannot be said to be a person resident outside India. Learned counsel for the appellant also contends ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of the person in Singapore who had instructed Manickam Reddiar to receive the payment. Nor does it establish any connection between the appellant and the person resident outside India on whose instructions the amount has been directed to be received by Manickam Reddiar. The question is whether on the basis of the statement alone, without any further corroboration, an offence under Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act can be taken to be established as against the appellant. Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act says : No person in or resident in, India shall receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India. This section makes the receipt of an amount by a person resident in Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived on his instructions cannot amount to contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents would refer to the fact that the appellant's statement dated 10-5-1973, refers to a portion of the letter said to have been received from Singapore. The slip has not been recovered and produced. Even assuming that the slip, which was handed over by Manickam Reddiar to the appellant, can be taken as the basis, it has not been shown that the slip formed a letter written by a person resident outside India, for it is possible that the letter might have been written from Singapore by a person resident in India, but who has gone there as a visitor. A person resident outside India has a definite connotation and a mere v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
