The Bombay High Court Acquitted Zaibash cloth stores owner of Foreign Exchange violation charges, citing Lack of Evidence.
Facts
Petitioner owned Cloth Stores by name Zaibash Cloth Stores at Madanpura, Mumbai. On 12th May, 1988, the officers of Enforcement Directorate ( for short E.D.), raided Petitioner’s Cloth Stores and seized cash from his cash box in Indian currency being an amount of Rs. 1,78,000/- and few other documents.
On 5 May, 1989, a Show Cause Notice was issued by the Assistant Director of Enforcement, to the Petitioner, alleging contravention of Section 9(1)(b) and Section 9(1)(d) of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( for short FERA). The said Show Cause Notice stated that the Petitioner had received Rs.45,000/- from persons residing outside India and made payment on behalf of the person, who was residing outside India.
Submissions
Ms.Ansari, counsel for the Petitioner made submissions that the Petitioner, who was a small Cloth Stores owner, was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself and the impugned Order is passed in his absence.
Advocate Rui Rodrigues, appearing for Respondent/Union of India, admitted that the notice of hearing was received by him, however he chose not to attend the hearing, hence the Appellate Tribunal had no option but to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Petitioner.
Decision
The division bench of Justice Rajesh S. Patil and Justice G.S. Kulkarni noted that the Officers of E.D. had raided the Petitioner’s cloth Stores on 12th May, 1988, and seized cash in Indian currency of Rs.1,78,000/-, and also few other documents were seized. Petitioner’s statements were recorded by the officers of E.D., and as per the Respondents, the Petitioner had admitted committing an offence, in his statement. However, on 24 May, 1988, the Petitioner retracted the statements made before the E.D. officers.
The court observed that there is nothing on record to prove that the Petitioner had committed an offence under Section 9 (1) (d) of the FERA Act. No case is made out for holding the Petitioner guilty for violation of Section 9(1)(d) r/w Section 64(2) of the Customs Act. The seized documents do not corroborate the fact of receipt and distribution of said amount by the Petitioner.
The bench held that this is a clear case where the Petitioner appears to have been deprived of his amount of Rs.1,48,000/- without authority of law on a totally untenable basis. The Petitioner could have utilized the said amount, the value of which at the relevant time was substantial.
Case title: Shri Abdul Aziz Ahmed Ansari v/s The Union of India
Citation: Writ Petition No.8148 Of 2004
