9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hom there was ongoing litigation with the appellant s sister. The respondent heavily relied upon the statement of the appellant to explain the documents of 4 pages recorded at the time of search to indicate that it was for the purchase of one house property at London from his sister and brother-in-law for 70000 pounds. The impugned order, however, does not disclose as to what was written on the document seized and explained. It is more so when the appellant had retracted from his statement on the next date. In any case, it was necessary to prove the transfer of the amount which respondent utterly failed because bare statement of brother-in-law for receipt of the amount cannot be taken as a proof when their relations were not cordial. When the statement of brother-in-law was not specific because he said to have received the amount on few occasions through other parties without naming any one herein. The purchase and even transfer of the property cannot be without execution of documents. The appellant never visited UK thus how transfer of property took place. Even otherwise, the execution of power of attorney for its use in UK was required to be notarized as per the British Law which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Show Cause Notice and the amount of penalty vis- -vis contravention of different provisions shows that major penalty of Rs.16 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant for violation of Section 8(1), 9(1)(a) and 25(1) of the Act of 1973. The amount of Rs.36000/- has been confiscated by exercising power under Section 63 of the Act of 1973. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged contravention of different provisions of the Act of 1973 is nothing but an outcome of the information given by his brother-in-law Shri Mohd. Ibrahim Achhalaof London. It was due to dispute with his wife Smt. Mariam (appellant s sister) and ongoing court litigation in UK. The appellant being the brother of the wife of informant Shri Mohd. IbrahimAchhala was made to suffer on account of false information given by his brother-in-law. 4. Coming straight to the facts of the case, it is submitted that the allegation against the appellant is for purchase and acquiring an immovable property worth 70000 pounds in London. The allegations have been made for contravention of Section 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and 25(1) of the Act of 1973. The respondent could not bring forward any material to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... how thatalleged immovable property belongs to him. A specific reference of the document has been given during the course of the argument. In the light of the facts given above, it was submitted that the respondent passed the order imposing penalty only for the sake of it without any material to make out a case of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act of 1973. 9. It is further stated that the respondent had searched the appellant s premises where they could not find foreign currency rather it was only Indian currency of Rs.30000/- and it has been confiscated without any reason. 10. The counsel for the appellant lastly stated that in fact, his brother-in-law tried to pass on the property to the appellant without any document only to save him from ongoing dispute between the husband and wife. If the house would have remained in the name of brother-in-law, then a claim could have been made by the appellant s sister. Thus, obvious arrangement of transfer was shown otherwise appellant does not own any immovable property in London. 11. The statement of father Suleman Haji was recorded to question the document seized from the residential premises. The father said to have stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CMM on the next date of custody, he retracted those statements on an application. An order on it was not passed but the fact remains that the statement of the appellant was recorded in custody and he retracted from his statement on the next date itself with an application to the CMM Court. However, it is settled proposition of law that even retracted statement can be relied if there exists corroborative evidence. In the instant case, retraction of the statement was made on the next date of the statement itself thus was without delay. The respondent, however, failed to produce any material to prove transfer of 70000 pounds. It could not have been in reference to the person with whom there was ongoing litigation with the appellant s sister. The respondent heavily relied upon the statement of the appellant to explain the documents of 4 pages recorded at the time of search to indicate that it was for the purchase of one house property at London from his sister and brother-in-law for 70000 pounds. The impugned order, however, does not disclose as to what was written on the document seized and explained. It is more so when the appellant had retracted from his statement on the next date. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
