9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (10) TMI 767X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e that the appellant received payments totalling Rs. 11,70,000 from various unknown persons under instructions of his brother-in-law Mohd. Jahn, a person resident in Muscat without the previous general or special exemption of the RBI and that out of the said amount of Rs. 11,70,000, he made payments amounting to Rs. 11,49,000 to various persons in India on the instructions of the said Mohd. Jahn without RBI s general or special exemption. The allegations are sought to be substantiated by the evidence of Panchnama dated 21-9-1988 and the documents seized thereunder, statements of the appellant recorded on 21-9-1988, 16-8-1989 and 17-8-1989 under section 40 of the Act, statements of P.S. Hariprashad dated 26-9-1988 and P.V. Krishnan of Kerala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement of 21-9-1988 where the appellant purported to have explained the contents of the said list. The appellant has taken the stand that the envelope has been planted in a pre-planned manner merely to create evidence against the appellant. This assertion gets support from the clarification made by CRV Nair. It gets stronger support from the fact that the postal stamps affixed on the envelope are of India. Obviously enough, the envelop did not originate from Muscat. As regards the seized letter which is in Malayalam. I called upon Dr. Shamsuddin to have an English translation of this letter made and filed for my perusal. Dr. Shamsuddin filed the English translation of the said letter as made by Smt. Kalayani, AEO of Bombay Zone. The lette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fficer who conducted the search and prepared the Panchnama. This would amount to denial of opportunity to the appellant to bring his evidence on record. However, in view of the clarification furnished by CRV Nair, EO, which negatives the evidence of seizure of documents from the appellant s premises, the denial is of no consequence. 5. In view of the above, in my opinion, there is no evidence on which reliance can be placed to substantiate the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(b). As regards the charge of contravention of section 9(1)(d) except for 3 seized drafts, there is no other evidence. However, since the seizure of these drafts has been negatived by the clarification made by CRV Nair, EO, which has been accepted by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
