9911796707
TMI Blog2001 (8) TMI 1458X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Bombay. Since the legal representatives of the appellant were not brought on record, this appeal abated in terms of the order of Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dated 12-7-1989. 3. It is further noted that the respondent initiated criminal proceedings against the appellants herein under section 56, read with section 9(1)(b), 9(1)(d) and 9(1)(e) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act ( the Act ), 1973 vide case Nos. 65, 66/CW of 1985. In both these cases, appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 3 were acquitted vide judgment of the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 8th Court, Esplanade, Bombay dated 19-1-1988 and 1-2-1988 respectively. The proceedings against appellant No. 2 were abated on account of his death. The learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nvoking the provisions of section 68(1) of the Act in as much as he is said to be, along with other partner Shri C.H. Mamooty, the in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm. This is based on the statement of Shri C.H. Abooty dated 30-8-1982 as recorded under section 40 of the Act when Shri C.H. Abooty stated that he is a partner of United Enterprises and the other partner Shri C.H. Mamooty is his brother and is equally responsible for the conduct of the firm. The learned adjudicating authority, while imposing penalty on the appellant herein, inter alia, observed that since Shri C.H. Mamooty did not actively take part in the day to day conduct of the affairs of their Bombay office, though he was equal partner o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 98 in case No. 65/CW of 1985 which reads as : As regards accused No. 1, the firm, there is no evidence except the statement made by accused Nos. 2 and 3. The firm got dissolved on the death of the accused No. 2. As against the firm, there is no independent evidence to hold that the offence under sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) read with section 56(1)(i) and (ii) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, are committed . Accordingly, accused No. 1, the firm, was acquitted of the charged offences. It may now be considered as to how far these observations hold good in so far as the impugned order is concerned. It is noted that the appellant-firm United Enterprises is a registered recruiting agent in the matter of meeting the requireme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
