9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (6) TMI 187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... geswaran, Assistant Legal Adviser, appearing for the respondent also confirms deposit of the penalty. The case was fixed for hearing on 2-6-1992. None appeared for the appellant on that date. However, a telegram was sent by the appellant requesting for waiver of his personal hearing. As the appellant wanted the Board to decide the matter on the basis of the records, representative of the responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions of section 27(1) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,000 on him vide his order No. AD/MAS/72/85 (GS). dated 29-11-1985. 3. Being aggrieved by the above order, the appellant filed the instant appeal, challenging the adjudication order mainly on the grounds that the venture to be set up by Shri Abdul Razack in which the appellant wanted to be a partner did not materialise as the Government of Brunei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny offence punishable under any of the enactments specified in the schedule or any other offence which under the provisions of that code, may be tried along with such offence, and every offence referred to in clause (i) or clause (ii) may be taken cognizance of by the Court having jurisdiction as if the provisions of that Chapter were not enacted'. This is mentioned in the schedule to that Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clearly an after thought with an attempt to wriggle out of the situation. I, therefore, reject the latter plea taken by the party and hold him guilty of the contravention stated in the show-cause notice. 6. The appellant made the confessional statement on 15-3-1985 in which he had stated that the Brunei dollars 2,500 had been invested as his share in a provision shop run by his brother-in-law an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment was not voluntary or was obtained by force. In the circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the finding of the Adjudicating Officer that the retraction was an after thought idea. 7. The penalty imposed on the appellant does not appear to be excessive having regard to the amount involved in the contravention. 8. Therefore, there is no substance in the appeal and the adjudication order is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
