9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 1124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 for having otherwise acquired foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 2.59 lakh during the year 1986 1992. The appellant has deposited Rs. 5,000 as pre-deposit of penalty amount in compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 11-9-2002 where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have heard elaborate arguments from Shri R.S. Gill, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Shri A.C. Singh, DLA for the respondent and gone through the record, relevant law and judicial pronouncements carefully. This is a follow up case where investigations were initiated by the police and the Enforcement Directorate was informed about seizure of US$ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant that during the year 1986-87, he purchased foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 68,492 and sold the same for Rs. 73,525 to one Malkiat Singh, a co-noticee in this case. That statement was retracted by the Petitioner and was not corroborated by any independent evidence. The appellant could not be penalized merely on the basis of general assumption without corroboration. The statement was very much vague and there was no documentary evidence to prove the case against the appellant. The observations of the Adjudicating Officer in the impugned order that Malkiat Singh in his statement admitted that during the year 1986 1992 he had purchased foreign currencies worth Rs. 2.59 lakh, was contradictory to the statement of the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other person. (2) Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank, no person, whether an authorised dealer or a money changer or otherwise, shall enter into any transaction which provides for the conversion of Indian currency into foreign currency or foreign currency into Indian currency at rates of exchange other than the rates for the time being authorised by the Reserve Bank. 6. The statement of Hardeep Singh was recorded by Enforcement Officers on 22-7-1993 where he admitted that he sold foreign exchange to Malkiat Singh Multani and when confronted with P-20 of the diary seized from the custody of Malkiat Singh Multani and the statement of Malkiat Singh Multani recorded on 14-7-1993 he admitted that the docum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 2.59 lakh from Hardeep Singh during aforesaid period. 8. The appellant in his statement admitted that during the period 1986-1987, he purchased foreign exchange equivalent to Rs. 68,492and sold the same for Rs. 73,525 to Malkiat Singh. When confronted with the statement of Malkiat Singh, he admitted having purchased and sold the foreign exchange as stated by Malkiat Singh i.e., to the extent of Rs. 2.59 lakh where I find no force in the contentions of Ld. Advocate, Shri Gill that there was contradiction made between the statements given by Malkiat Singh and the statement given by the appellant. 9. The statement of the appellant is fully corroborated by the statement of co-noticee, Malkiat Singh. I find no force in the argument of Ld. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corroborated by the statement of co-noticee, the documentary as well as attended circumstantial evidence of the case. 11. It is argued by Ld. Counsel that the appellant was not permitted to cross-examine the co-noticee, Malkiat Singh and the principles of natural justice were violated. However, in view of the above discussion, I am of the view that the confessional statement of the appellant is fully corroborated by the documentary as well as the statement of the co-noticee and attended circumstantial evidence of the case, where there was no sufficient reason to permit the appellant to cross-examine the co-noticee. The cross-examination of a co-noticee cannot be permitted by way of right unless and until certain justification is given for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh admitted that the extent of foreign exchange was to the extent as it was stated by Malkiat Singh. 13. Thus the appellant has rightly been held guilty by the Adjudicating Officer. However, now coming to the point of quantum of penalty, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the appellant is poor man, hardly having means to meet day-to-day requirement of his life. This is a 21 years old matter where he has faced trauma and agony of the long litigation and it is requested to reduce penalty amount alleging that the penalty under section 8(1) and 8(2) has been imposed for the common amount involved under two charges. Having considered the facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the amount of penalty appears to be exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
