9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts are not in possession of legible copies of the aforesaid documents, as such, there was no occasion or possibility for the respondents to provide legible copies of these documents to the petitioners when they were not themselves in possession of the legible record. Though the respondents were obliged to provide legible copies of the documents relied upon by them but when they themselves were not in possession of the legible copies of the documents mentioned above, it was impossible for them to provide the same to the petitioners. The rules of natural justice do not operate in vacuum. Therefore, when the respondents themselves incapable of furnishing legible copies of certain documents, it cannot be stated that by non-furnishing of these documents to the petitioners, the principles of natural stand violated. A perusal of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the petitioners clearly indicates that they have effectively replied each and every allegation made in the show cause notice and they have also responded to the allegations relating to confessional statements of petitioners No.1 and 2 and their statements recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng within 30 days from the date of receipt of notice as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated in Section 13(1) of FEMA should not be held against them and as to why the seized foreign currency of 1,00,000/ US Dollars should not be confiscated to the Central Government in terms of Section 13(2) of FEMA. The petitioners were also informed by way of the aforesaid show cause notice that in case it is decided to hold enquiry proceedings in terms of Section 13 of FEMA, they would be required to either appear in person or through Legal Practitioner/Chartered Accountant to explain and produce such documents or evidences, as may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the enquiry and in case of their failure, the adjudication proceedings would proceed against them exparte. In the show cause notice, it was further indicated that reliance was placed upon the documents listed in Annexure-B to the complaint and that original of the said relied upon documents would be made available for inspection of the petitioners or their authorized representative in the office of respondent No.1. 3) Reply to the show cause notice was filed by the petitioners wherein they raised prelim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urt. 7) On merits, it has been submitted by the respondents that as per the prosecution case in FIR No.14/2002 for offences under Section 3/6 POTA registered with P/S Kud Udhampur, foreign currency of US Dollars 1.00 lac was seized from petitioners No.1 and 2. According to the respondents, the said petitioners disclosed that the seized foreign currency was acquired by them from Nepal from one Altaf Qadri, leader of All Parties Hurriyat Conference and was meant to be handed over to petitioner No.3. Thus, according to the respondents, there were cogent grounds for proceeding against the petitioners. The respondents have given details regarding the case registered against the petitioners and seizure of foreign currency. 8) Regarding supply of legible copies of relied upon documents, the respondents have submitted that the petitioners never approached their office with such a request. It has been further submitted that the criminal proceedings are entirely different from the adjudication proceedings under FEMA and, as such, merely because criminal proceedings are going on against the petitioners, the impugned notice cannot be recalled. 9) I have heard learned counsel for the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e writ petition is, therefore, held to be maintainable and the preliminary objection raised by the respondents about its maintainability is rejected. 14) That takes us to the merits of the case. It has been vehemently contended by Mr. Qayoom, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that once the petitioners had made it known to the respondents that some of the documents relied upon by the respondents for issuing show cause notice to the petitioners were not legible, it was the duty of the respondents to provide legible copies of those documents to the petitioners or else allow them inspection of the record and without undertaking such an exercise, the respondent No.2 could not have framed an opinion to proceed against the petitioners. It has been submitted that in the impugned notice, the respondent No.2 has not even made a passing reference to the request of the petitioners which they had made specifically in their reply to the show cause notice. 15) The question that falls for determination in this case is as to whether the supply of documents relied upon by an Adjudicating Authority in framing an opinion to proceed against the noticee is a mandatory requirement. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder sub-section (1), may, if he thinks fit in addition to any penalty which he may impose for such contravention direct that any currency, security or any other money or property in respect of which the contravention has taken place shall be confiscated to the Central Government and further direct that the foreign exchange holdings, if any, of the persons committing the contraventions or any part thereof, shall be brought back into India or shall be retained outside India in accordance with the directions made in this behalf. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, property in respect of which contravention has taken place, shall include (a) deposits in a bank, where the said property is converted into such deposits; (b) Indian currency, where the said property is converted into that currency; and (c) any other property which has resulted out of the conversion of that property. 17) A perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that for determining as to whether a person has contravened any provision of FEMA, the Adjudicating Authority has to adjudge the matter. 18) Section 16 of FEMA provides for appointment of Adjudicating Authority and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lly the reasons in writing for not disposing of the complaint within the said period. 19) From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that for the purpose of adjudication under Section 13 of FEMA, the Adjudicating Authority has to hold an enquiry after giving the person alleged to have committed contravention under Section 13 a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Adjudicating Authority has to hold an enquiry upon a complaint in writing made by any the authorized officer and the person, against whom allegations of contravention are made, has a right to appear in person or to have legal assistance before the Adjudicating Authority. As per the said provision, the powers of civil court have been vested to an Adjudicating Authority. 20) In exercise of powers under Section 46 read with Sections 16(1), 17(3) and 19(1) of FEMA, the Central Government has made the Rules of 2000. Rule 4 of the said Rules is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under: 4. Holding of inquiry.-- (1) For the purpose of adjudicating under section 13 of the Act whether any person has committed any contravention as specified in that section of the Act, the Adjudicating A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in writing, impose such penalty as he thinks fit, in accordance with the provisions of section 13 of the Act. (9) Every order made under sub-rule (8) of the rule 4 shall specify the provisions of the Act or of the rules, regulations, notifications, directions or orders or any condition subject to which an authorisation is issued by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of which contravention has taken place and shall contain reasons for such decisions. (10) Every order made under sub-rule (8) shall be dated and signed by the Adjudicating Authority. (11) A copy of the order made under sub-rule (8) of rule 4 shall be supplied free of charge to the person against whom the order is made and all other copies of proceedings shall be supplied to him on payment of copying fee @ Rs. 2 per page. (12) The copying fee referred to in sub-rule (11) shall be paid in cash or in the form of demand draft in favour of the Adjudicating Authority. 21) From a perusal of the aforesaid Rule, it appears that while holding an enquiry, the Adjudicating Authority has to initially issue a notice to the concerned person asking him to show cause as to why an enquiry should not be held aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the subject, it is clear that though the provisions of FEMA and the Rules made thereunder do not mandate the Adjudicating Authority to provide copies of the documents relied upon by it in issuing the show cause notice to the concerned person, yet the Adjudicating Authority has to provide these documents to the person concerned so as to enable him to file a proper reply to the show cause notice. 24) Coming to the facts of the instant case, it has been clearly indicated by the petitioners in their reply to the show cause notice dated 26th October, 2017, that the relied upon documents forming Annexure-B are unreadable, blurred and not legible and a request has been made to provide legible copies of these documents or to allow the petitioners to prepare copies of these documents from the office of respondents. 25) The record produced by the respondents does not suggest that the after filing of their reply to the show cause notice, the petitioners have either been provided legible copies of the documents or they have been allowed inspection of the record. The record contains the receipts of documents executed by the petitioners, according to which all the documents were furnished ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the legible record. Though the respondents were obliged to provide legible copies of the documents relied upon by them but when they themselves were not in possession of the legible copies of the documents mentioned above, it was impossible for them to provide the same to the petitioners. The rules of natural justice do not operate in vacuum. Therefore, when the respondents themselves incapable of furnishing legible copies of certain documents, it cannot be stated that by non-furnishing of these documents to the petitioners, the principles of natural stand violated. 28) Even otherwise, a perusal of the reply to the show cause notice filed by the petitioners clearly indicates that they have effectively replied each and every allegation made in the show cause notice and they have also responded to the allegations relating to confessional statements of petitioners No.1 and 2 and their statements recorded before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, which are stated to be not legible. Therefore, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by non-supply of legible copies of these two documents which, in any case, are not available with the respondents themselves. 29) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
