9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 609X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent in the United Kingdom. 2. The appellant has sent an application dated 6-2-1996 (received in the Registry on 7-2-1996) under which he has made a prayer for adjournment of the case as he is unable to attend the hearing due to 'Ramzan' and his Advocate is not keeping well. Shri Gadoo, DLA, is present on behalf of the respondent. 3. I have seen the record of the case including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned order. The appellant has challenged the order of imposition of penalty on the ground 'that there is no wilful default, no conscious involvement, no deliberate act to defy the law, no contumacious or dishonest act and there is a mere technical breach so far as the appellant'. It is further seen that while replyi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... khs from an unknown person. He stated that he is an Honorary Secretary of the Young Surti Sunni Vora Muslim Welfare Society; that his Society had planned a project for Musafirkhana for his community at Bombay and the money was sent for the said project; that he is rendering only a honorary service to the organisation; that he has not derived any benefit out of this service to the Society or out of the said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs that he has not used the said money for personal purposes but had spent the said money for charitable purpose for which the said money was received; that he had committed the offence due to sheer ignorance of the law; that he would not commit any such mistake in future. 7. It appears that the action against the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cknowledgment of the receipt of the amount in his own letter head and under his own signature and deposited the amount in the accounts of the Society. These facts and circumstances tend to mitigate the degree of culpability of the appellant and ought to have been taken into consideration while determining the quantum of penalty. 9. The appellant has pleaded absence of mens rea and ignorance of law. The plea of absence of mens rea cannot be sustained as it cannot be denied that the appellant had the knowledge that the amount have been sent from the U.K. and that it had not been remitted through proper banking channels. The plea of ignorance of law obviously will not save the appellant from the charge of contravention. 10. In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
