9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (10) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice-Chancellor went abroad on July 29, 1973, and returned to India on September 28, 1973. He had an invitation to attend the Commonwealth Universities Conference at Edinburgh. He visited the German Democratic Republic as well as the U.S.S.R. and it is not in dispute that these countries acted as host to him and covered his expenditure. The appellant then was on foreign and went to the United States. One Mr. Mhaisekar is his brother and is stationed at Chicago. It is not in dispute that the appellant was in the United States for a period of two weeks and travelled in that country. It is further not in dispute for the purpose of the present appeal, and even it cannot be disputed, as it had been the case of the appellant himself, that for the purpose of stay and travel within the United States his brother had paid him cash in the United States. The appellant's statement of May 9, 1975, filed with the Deputy Director of Enforcement goes to show the amount of U.S. dollars in the sum of $ 1,914.03 having rupee value of ₹ 15,503.70 as the cost of air fare, transportation, meals and other incidentals. It states the expenditure incurred to the reply at annex. B in clear terms styl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter his brother spent for the appellant 1913. 61 U.S. dollars during the period of the appellant was in that country and he asserted that this was part of family affair. In his letter dated December 30, 1974, to the Assistant Controller, Foreign Exchange, the appellant communicated that his Chicago-based brother made all his expenses in respect of maintenance and internal travel during his stay in foreign countries. On January 3, 1975, the Assistant Controller wrote to the appellant, it appears, communicating to him that the hospitality extended to him by his brother during August, 1973, would not amount to contravention of the control regulations, since it was stated that he had travelled under the Foreign Travel Scheme of 1970. On January 16, 1975, however, the Joint Controller wrote to the appellant that on scrutiny of the papers it was observed that he had claimed from the University for the expenditure incurred by him abroad in excess of whatever was paid to him and that his claim in the sum of ₹ 26,298 was also sanctioned by the University and it would mean that what was claimed by him for reimbursement from the University was to be paid by him to his brother, in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e University concerned from whose funds the appellant had got sanctioned the expenditure to which reference is already made and there is nothing wrong on the part of the Chancellor, who is the Governor, to seek information as to what steps the Director was taking with regard to the expenditure represented to have been made by the Vice-Chancellor who went overseas in that capacity. It is difficulty to find any mala fide in this regard only because such queries are made by the high dignitaries of the State, who is also the Chancellor of the concerned University. 6. The submission of the learned counsel that these letters influenced the course of the present proceedings, to say the least, is entirely baseless. The whole thing appears to be the result of the representation of the appellant himself. It is he who submitted to the University the break-up of expenditure styling it to be the expenses incurred by him and sought reimbursement from the University. It is he, who, after getting the sanction and presumably getting the amount from the university funds, entered into correspondence with the Reserve Bank of India with a view to remit that or any part of that amount to his b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hospitality and travel. The affidavit of the brother further states : since I could not accompany him to all places because of my own employment, I had to give him necessary cash not as his own but for the purpose of spending on the above-said expenses of travel, : board and lodge and incidental charges . The portions within inverted common above are from the affidavit of April 7, 1976, filed during the course of hearing before the appeal court. In the earlier affidavit of February 25, 1975, the said Mhaisekar had stated that he had not received any amount of money directly or indirectly from the appellant towards his foreign travel during July, August and September, 1973. 8. All these statements of acts do not leave any manner of doubt that the appellant visited the United States and has expend U.S. dollars for the purpose of travel, boarding and lodging and other incidental charges and those dollars were made available to him by his brother. It does not appear from the affidavits of the said brother that the appellant had to reimburse this foreign exchange in any form. At least there is no evidence on this aspect. However, it appears that the appellant did draw from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... being a quasi-criminal proceeding, should go to the accused person. 10. Careful consideration of both these aspects as pressed in aid by the learned counsel does not, under the facts and circumstances of the present case, ensure to his benefit. As the facts stand and are found, which must be assumed for the purpose of the present appeal to haven been properly found, it was U.S. dollars which were made available by the brother of the appellant for his expenditure. The case of hospitality has been rejected. Reference to the Manual on which heavy reliance is placed does not bring the case of the appellant in any permissive category. It must not be forgotten that the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act have been enacted with an object to regulate certain payments and dealings in foreign exchange with an object to regulate certain payments and dealings in foreign exchange in the economic and financial interest of the country. The Manual and the particular parts on which reliance is placed being the Introductory Part, S.P.M. 8 - P Form procedure, P Form Eligibility Criteria, Foreign Travel in paras. 15.1, 15.4, 15.B.11, Part-F (15.17) and Miscellaneous Travel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch securing of the foreign exchange. On the other hand some of the provisions only permit securing payment of foreign exchange to the extent of U.S. 500 dollars from the authorised dealers and not from any other person. Reliance of the learned counsel, therefore, on the Manual hardly helps the appellant, who has indeed, as is his case, travelled under the Foreign Travel Scheme and recovered foreign money much more than U.S. dollars 550 from his brother. Such a course is not permissible. Schemes and guidelines merely show that he was permitted to leave the country without the usual formalities but do not further imply that he was at liberty to acquire foreign exchange from any person to any extent while he was abroad. 12. The other aspect of the learned counsel's submission rests on the findings and the interpreting of the terms of s. 4(1). Both the Deputy Director and the appeal court have found that acquisition of the concerned foreign exchange amounted to gift and being contrary to the notification No. FERA-256/72 R.V. dated October 7, 1972. 13. Section 4(1) reads as follows : Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to find out its in built limitations. The question is, what is contemplated by the term otherwise acquired ? Is it simpliciter coming in possession of the foreign exchange that is intended to be covered by this phrase or is it intended to indicate that the acquisition must be with a title or dominion permitting non-questionable appropriation of the same ? 16. Before the grammar of this phrase is examined, it is enough to observe that extension of hospitality in the shape of making available goods or services or making available the material items of happiness including means of communication or travel and receipt thereof cannot be within the mischief of this section. Even buying of food by another or of entertainment or tickets of travel and making it available in the bought-form as such will not be within the mischief, for, the persons who buy will be expending foreign exchange on his account. It, therefore, follows that the host for his guest, is no intended to be regulated by the provisions of sub-s. (1). Hardly between a guest and the host one can conceive of any monetary transaction. But when such monetary transactions ensue between two persons necessarily the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily is the process known to law involving transfer of interests in property. It is a dual process in that it implies giving and taking. The passing of property is made obviously by these elements. When the giver gives, he is said to transfer, while the taker takes, he is said to acquire. The giver gives what he possesses and is entitled to so give; while the taker takes and as such acquires what the giver thus possessed and was entitled to. The acquisition, therefore, is synonymous with taking of the property. Elementary taking involves the possession of the things so taken as well as power or authority to deal with it on one's own account. 20. Keeping these acknowledged connotations and legal effects it can be stated that when the process of acquisition takes place with regard to the property in question negatively it indicates that prior to the acquisition the acquirer had no interest or title to that property. Positively, the process of acquisition follows the concrete results in the taking of the property so that the acquirer comes in possession and is in a possession to appropriate the same. The word otherwise acquired , however wide it may be, positively implie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
