9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 829X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against the said order was stated to be pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, it is apparent that the very basis i.e the order Ex.CW2/C had not even attained finality and the complaint was preferred in a tearing hurry without any valid explanation. Thus instant appeal is wholly misconceived, bereft of merits and without any substance; thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out. - CRA-S-909-SBA-2006 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2023 - Hon ble Mr. Justice N.S. Shekhawat For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Moudgil, Senior Counsel, Govt. of India For the Respondent : Mr. A.S.Gill, Advocate ORDER N.S.SHEKHAWAT J. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 06.10.2004 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar, whereby, the respondent was ordered to be acquitted of the charge under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred at as 'the Act'). The learned trial Court held that there was no other evidence against the respondent except his statements Ex.CW2/A and Ex.CW2/B and no material was available on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the alleged crime and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s house at Jalandhar for the last three years. He also conveyed to respondent to go to Delhi and collect money and make payments and the same was followed by the respondent. He was engaged in the said job since 1988 and the last payment was made by him on 21.01.1990. Satnam Singh S/o Waryam Singh, respondent was also engaged for the said distribution of payments in India and he was in Dubai since November, 1989. Till date, they had distributed a sum of Rs. 60 lacs in India under instructions from abroad and out of the said amount, Rs. 1,10,900/- were seized from their house. In fact, that was the amount received from Delhi for distribution in Punjab to the relations of the persons, who had made payments in Dirhams to him at Dubai. The statement of the respondent was also recorded on 22.01.1990, who also stated that he had gone to Dubai and stayed with his brother-in-law Balwinder Singh Sandhu and returned to India in May, 1989 and was living with his sister in Jalandhar. While he was in Dubai, his brother-inlaw suggested to him to distribute money in India and he agreed with the proposal. The money used to be sent to him in India under the instructions of Balwinder Singh sandhu, wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Act and thereby rendered himself liable for the proceedings under Section 50 of the Act. A show cause notice dated 10.01.1991 was issued to him by Special Director, Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi to show cause in writing as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by Section 51 of the Act be not taken against him for contravening the above sections of the Act and for which, the respondent/accused was liable to be prosecuted under Section 50 of the Act. The adjudication proceedings were ultimately initiated against the respondent and vide adjudication order dated 17.01.1992, he was held liable and a penalty of Rs. 4 lacs was imposed on him for contravention of the provisions of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Act. Apart from that an opportunity notice dated 08.02.1993 was issued to the accused by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Jalandhar to show cause and to produce the evidence within 15 days to prove as to whether he had the permission of Reserve Bank of India for making payments to any person in or resident in India and to receive payments and making payments by a person not a reside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. Even CW-2 Ishwar Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise, Chandigarh admitted in his cross-examination that the house, which was raided, did not belong to the accused. Further, he admitted that Balwinder Singh Sandhu and his wife were present in the house at the time of raid. But surprisingly, Balwinder Singh Sandhu was not arrayed as an accused in the instant case, who was the person against whom all the allegations were levelled. Apart from that, it was apparent that the panchnama Ex.C1 did not bear the signatures of the accused, which was also admitted by CW-2 Ishwar Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise, Chandigarh and the learned trial Court rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted him. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the complainant was not a part of the raiding party and his non-examination would have no impact on the present case and the respondent has been wrongly acquitted. Learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court and submitted that the non-examination of the most material witness has caused prejudice to the case of the respondent. I agree with the sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at, even the complaint was premature as the same was launched on the strength of the orders Ex.CW2/C and the appeal preferred by the respondent against the said order was stated to be pending before the Appellate Tribunal. Thus, it is apparent that the very basis i.e the order Ex.CW2/C had not even attained finality and the complaint was preferred in a tearing hurry without any valid explanation. Hon ble the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Maharashtra Vs. Fazal Rehman Abdul , 2014 (7) SCC (Crl) 1 has observed as under:- This Court has laid down parameters for interference against the order of acquittal time and again. The appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. While dealing with a judgment of acquittal, the appellate court has to consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court is entitled to consider whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial court had failed to take into consideration admissib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
