9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 14-11-1984, the premises of Shyam Kishan Sharma (S.K. Sharma) were searched by the officers of DRI. The search resulted in the recovery and seizure of incriminating documents, contraband gold and Indian currency. The statements of Baligur Rehman, S.K. Sharma and Ravi Sharma, son of S.K. Sharma who also resided with his father, were also recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. It would also appear that S.K. Sharma and the appellant were detained under COFEPOSA. After their release from the prison, the Enforcement officers issued summons under Section 40 of the Act sometimes in August, 1987. They appeared in response to the summons after obtaining anticipatory bail. None of them admitted anything which they had confessed before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iculars are contradicted by the letter of the Hong Kong Customs authorities in respect of the dates of the appellant's visit to Hong Kong and the amount of foreign exchange declared on those visits. The foreign exchange mentioned in the statement is US dollars while in the said letter it is "assorted". Moreover, that letter, even if taken in evidence indicates the taking out of foreign exchange. It does not indicate the delivery of foreign exchange to Baligur Rehman. 13. It is stated in the impugned order that SCN was issued in November, 1988 after completion of investigation. There is nothing to indicate whether any investigation was made after the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 108 or after the receipt of the lett ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 24-8-87. These conclusions, in so far as they relate to the appellant, are contrary to facts on record. Baligur Rehman's statement does not implicate the applicant in respect of the charge. Hong Kong Customs' letter does not confirm appellant's visit in June, 1984; nor does it corroborates the amount and nature of foreign currency. Apparently, the investigating agency was aware of the inadequacy of the evidence to bring home the charge as they have relied on the statements (though not admissible) for proving the transfer of the foreign exchange and on the Hong Kong Customs' letter for proving the amount (though it is contrary to the statements) as this letter does not prove the transfer of foreign exchange. It appears from the discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
