9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (9) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as confiscated under section 63 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated, show-cause notice (Memorandum No. T-4/294/SZ/C/90) dated 21-12-1990 was issued to the appellant alleging as follows: (i) that during 1989-90, Mr. Tan Boon Toong, a person in India, without the general or special exemption from Reserve Bank of India, received various payments totalling to Rs. 6,90,000 from local persons other than authorised dealers in foreign exchange, by order or on behalf of his wife Smt. M.T. Chia, 73, Jalan, 6, Pandamaran Jaya Port Klang, Salangur, Malaysia, a person resident outside India, and thereby contravened the provisions of section 9(1)(b); (ii) that during 1990, Mr. Tan Boon Toong, a person in India, made payments totalling to Rs. 30,000 to Shri Kho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant also submitted that the prosecuting agency has failed to prove the receipt of money through unauthorised channel in terms of section 9(1)(b) read with the Explanation thereunder and that mere receipt of money does not amount to violation of section 9(1)(b). The counsel for the appellant further submitted that the confessional statement was retracted by the appellant and as such the same cannot form basis of conviction unless it is true and is corroborated in material particulars. The counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions in K. Narayanaswamy v. Deputy Director AIR 1983 Mad. 53, E.V. Marakkar v. Deputy Director of Enforcement [1989] 21 ECC 164, S. Saleem Khan v. Deputy Director of Enforcement [1985] (5) ECC 146, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said payments of Rs. 7,000, Rs. 13,000 and Rs. 10,000, totalling to Rs. 30,000, were made by him. The appellant has not stated in his reply to the show-cause notice that the confessional statement was recorded under threat and duress. What the appellant has stated in his reply dated 4-1-1991 to the show-cause notice is as follows: I am a Malaysian citizen. My English knowledge is very poor. Therefore, I did not bring out clearly the above correct facts in my statements with the result that you have misunderstood my case and the show-cause notice is the result of such misunderstanding. Kindly excuse me for my deficiency in English language which has given you the unnecessary trouble of issuing show-cause notice and if I had good command in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unless the circumstances clearly show that there is intrinsic truth in the statement itself, it would be advisable to need corroboration in such matters. So far as the present case is concerned, the voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statement, as already stated, does not appear to be in doubt. In E.V. Marakkar's case (supra), the Court observed that the burden to prove that the remittances were through unauthorised channels and that there was no inward remittance lies on the prosecuting agency. In K. Narayanaswamy's case (supra), the ratio laid down by the Court is that since the essential ingredient necessary for proof of breach of section 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is the receipt of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
