Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2015 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 1358 - HC - Indian LawsCase of Enforcement Directorate proved as against the appellant - Held that:- Appellate Tribunal has committed a grave error in stating that the retracted statement of the appellant had been corroborated by relying upon the alleged seizure of Diary, which is not even shown to the appellant. The Appellate Tribunal has also not considered the following facts. (i) the diary was not a relied upon document in the memorandum of show cause notice issued. (ii) The contents of the diary have also not been communicated to the appellant at any point of time. (iii) Factually also if such a diary has been produced it would indeed have revealed there is no entry or even the names of the sender as well as the names of the recipients. Having been considered the visible and tangible discrepancies strewn everywhere in the case of Enforcement Directorate, we are of the considered view that it is unsafe to hold that the case of Enforcement Directorate has been proved as against the appellant. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant. Whether the proceedings are vitiated by bias in as much as the then Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, Chennai, Mr.A.Subramani had participated in the investigation and later issued the show cause notice and adjudicated the case himself? - Held that:- In order to avoid the embarassing position and to allow the prosecution to play fair in an unbiased manner, the process of adjudication should have been handed over to some other Officer. But in this case it is unfortunate to say that the Officer viz., Mr.S.Subramanian, who had an occasion to search the premises of the appellant and to issue the memorandum of show cause notice was entrusted with the task of adjudication of the show cause notice against the appellant and that is why it went on the wrong side and ended with the result as against the appellant. In this connection, we would like to place it on record that the Adjudicating Authority is required to take an independent decision as a quasijudicial authority and pass appropriate orders. We therefore, find that when the adjudication is to be done by an Independent Officer where no role was played by the Investigating Officer, no prejudice could be caused to the appellant and in that circumstance, we may safely presume that the scheme of the Act sufficiently safeguard the rights of the appellant. On coming to the instant case on hand, the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate Mr.S.Subramanian, ought not to have adjudicated the show cause notice for the reasons afore stated. Accordingly, the question of law No.2 is also answered in favour of the appellant. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 07.12.2007 as well as the Adjudicating Authority dated 20.09.2000 are set aside and the appellant is discharged from all charges levelled against him. The penalty of ₹ 4,50,000/- if paid shall be refunded to the appellant. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed. No costs.
|