9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 3(1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred on as the 'Act') with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the conservation of foreign exchange and directed him to be detained and kept in custody in the central prison, Bombay. 3. A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated. The Enforcement Directorate, Bombay received certain information that M/s. Tushar Enterprises, M/s. Aum Enterprises and M/s. Shah Enterprises - all situated at Bombay had remitted abroad foreign exchange worth about ₹ 5 crores on the strength of faked/bogus import documents through Union Bank of India. The proprietor of the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h and Pankaj Valia. On the basis of the information given by Tushar Shah separate statements were recorded from Kirit L. Shah on 25.2.1991, from the detenu and one Pankaj T. Valia on 26.2.1991. In addition, some more statements were also recorded from various other persons inclusive of the officials of the Union Bank of India. As a follow up, the residential premises of Pankaj Valia and one Ramesh as well as some business premises were searched by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate. The detenu herein, Tushar Shah, Kirit L. Shah and Pankaj Valia gave their statements involving themselves in the illegal remittances of the foreign exchange. The first respondent, namely, the detaining authority on drawing the requisite subjective sati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u for about period of 4 years was indulging in several acts of FERA infraction... without any material for such an allegation. 5. The learned Counsel, in passing, advanced one more contention stating that the retraction of the detenu was not taken into consideration, but he did not press this contention and pursue the same. 6. In support of the first contention two decisions of this Court were relied upon by Mr. R.K. Jain. Those being (1) T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala and Ors. and (2) Pradeep Nilkanath Paturkar v. Shri S. Ramamurthi and Ors. . In Abdul Rahman's case there was no denying the fact that the impugned order had been passed after a lapse of 11 months from the date of seizure of contrabands. It was having regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the statements, dated 31.7.1991 and 5.8.1991 of Shri S.V. Shitre, Deputy Manager, Foreign Exchange Department, Union Bank of India, Khand Bazar Bombay the following facts have emerged. 8. In the list of documents, furnished, it is specifically stated that the statements were recorded on cannot July, 1991 and 5th August, 1991 from the Deputy Manager of the Union Bank of India and a lot of documents were received under his statement dated 5.8.1991. ; 9. In the light of the above facts, we see much force in the submission made by Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, the learned Additional Solicitor General that the complaint of 6-1/2 months delay cannot be countenanced and the delay from the date of recording of the last statement of the Bank Manager ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
