9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1603X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sheet marked 'A' and one telephone diary marked as 'B' containing 1 to 50 pages were recovered from the business premises. It was apart from one note book marked as 'A' running in 21 pages, one telephone index marked 'B' running in 6 pages and note book marked as 'C' and bunch of loose sheets containing 128 pages and Indian currency of Rs. 80000/- apart from mobile etc. were recovered and seized by the respondent. 3. During the search, statement of Mr. Mahendra Jain and Shri Ramesh B. Doshi were recorded where they explained the seized documents. The statement of Shri Ramesh Doshi was recorded on 21.04.2003 and 26.06.2003 apart from initial statement on 10.04.2003. While statement of Shri Mahendra Jain was recorded on 26.06.2003. The Panchnama thereupon was prepared on 27.06.2003 for retrieving the particulars stored and found in the phone book menu and SMS received in message menu of the BPL mobile phone no. 9821095365 belonging to the appellant- Shri Ramesh B. Doshi. It was found that the appellant, Shri Ramesh Doshi is involved in hawala transactions which he had admitted in his statement recorded on 10.04.2003. 4. The statement of Shri Mahendra Jain was also recorded from ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alleged to have been recovered from the appellant. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant, further, submitted that an opportunity of cross-examination of the persons whose statements have been relied was not provided despite specific prayer and thereby the respondent violated the principles of natural justice. It is more so when the statement of Shri Aftab Alam and Shri Abhilash were relied but cross-examination was denied on the ground that the copy of the statements of those persons was given to the appellant. The cross-examination has been denied ignoring the catena of judgement of different Courts and the Supreme Court in reference to the principles of natural justice. 8. The Ld. Counsel of the appellant also submitted that the impugned order was passed with a delay of 11 months after hearing. Delay in passing of the order is fatal in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court and on the aforesaid ground also, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant did not raise any other issue other than referred above despite an opportunity to him to refer and raise any other legal or factual issue. The Counsel for the appellant recorded his sat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the officials without following due process of law and in fact the documents allegedly shown in the panchanama were not seized from my residence but was brought by the officials from some where and shown as if the same were recovered from my residence (.)The above act of officials is totally illegal and against all norms to be followed during the course of search (.) The fact of the illegal search conducted will be demonstrated before you in my detailed letter following this shortly (.) After the conclusion of search I was taken to the hospital without any authority and I was made to sit very late in the office and admit that the entries in some book accounts brought by the officials from some where during the course of the search that they pertain to some hawala transaction of mine with some unknown person in gulf (.) In fact I was not even knowing the person under whose order I made some payments(.) This fact will also be demonstrated before you shortly (.) I reiterate that the statements given by me till now is involuntary and was taken by the officials under threat and coercion (.)I categorically say that excepting my personal details all other items are totally false and tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act of 1999. 16. The Counsel for the appellant has referred several judgments where it has been held that retracted statement may not be relied and we agree with the proposition therefor. It is not required to refer or cite those judgments but would be referring the judgment in the case of Vinod Solanki vs.Union of India reported in (2008) 16 SCC 537where it was held that retracted statement can also be relied, if it is supported or corroborated by other evidence. It can be even if the retraction is for the sake of it and that there remains unexplained delay. Relevant para of the judgment is quoted hereunder: "23. It is trite law that evidence brought on record by way of confession which stood retracted must be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence, which would lend adequate assurance to the court that it may seek to rely thereupon. We are not oblivious of some decisions of this Court wherein reliance has been placed for supporting such contention but we must also notice that in some of the cases retracted confession has been used as a piece of corroborative evidence and not as the evidence on the basis whereof alone a judgment of convictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal trial. Here the person charged of contravening of any provision of the Act is issued a show cause notice bringing out the graveness of the charge against him who required to place all the relevant facts before the Adjudicating Officer and the latter, in turn, after applying the principles of natural justice to the available facts and contentions of the parties, decide the matter before him in regard to the liability of the charged person on the basis of evidentiary preponderance. The adjudication proceedings are quasi judicial in nature and are therefore not court of law. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Chintaman Sadaşhiva (AIR 1961-SC-1623) "the tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts. and therefore, they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in Courts nor are they bound by strict rules .of evidence. They can, unlike Courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources and through all channels, without being fettered by rule and procedure which govern proceeding in Court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the party has a fair and reasonable opportunity to see, comment and criticise the evidence, statement or record on which the charge is being made against him, the demands and the test of natural justice are satisfied. Cross examination in that sense is not technical cross examination in a Court of law in the witness box". 21. At this stage, we may further add that the cross-examination is permitted when the statement of witness are recorded before the Court or the Authority. It may be in the shape of affidavit but not recorded during the course of the inquiry or investigation. This is as per the provisions of the Evidence Act and in the instant case, no statement was recorded before the Adjudicating Authority so as to permit cross-examination. It is apart from the fact that in the quasi-judicial proceedings, the cross-examination cannot be claimed as a course. It may further be added that in our order, we have not relied on the statement of Shri Abhilash Vasa and Shri Aftab Alam, though, if the reliance is placed in reference to their version, a case is further made out against the appellant. Thus, denial of cross-examination in the facts of this case cannot be held to be illega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... furnished by him are narrated on page 4 of the Complaint. However, enquiries made by the Department with such persons did not yield into any tangible results as the addresses furnished by him were found to be non existent." 23. Taking aforesaid into consideration, we are of the opinion that the total penalty imposed upon the appellant, Sh. Ramesh B. Doshi needs to be reduced and accordingly we cause interference in the penalty amount which is substituted by the penalty of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty lakhs only)for contravention of section 3(c) and for Section (a) it is imposed for Rs.60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty lakhs only) and for section 3(b) it is made to Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Only) on the appellant- Shri Ramesh B. Doshi, totaling Rs.1,40,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Forty lakh only). So far as Shri Mahendra Jain is concerned, he was the employee of Shri Ramesh B. Doshi and was getting salary of Rs.15000/-. The respondent has not placed on record any document to show it to be his business and directly involved in hawala transactions but was working as an employee of Shri Ramesh B. Doshi and thereby their remain no justification to impose heavy penalty on him and accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
