1962 (4) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT

What are the terms and conditions on which the deposits in question were made?

Whether on those terms and conditions there has been a violation of section 4(1) of the Act by the appellant?

Whether the imposition of penalty under section 23(1)(a) of the Act is bad on the ground that the section is in contravention of article 14 and in consequence void?

Held that:- We are satisfied that the deposits in account No. 50180 were made by the German firms on the conditions stated by the appellant. We have reached this conclusion on a consideration of the evidence on record, without reference to any abstract doctrine as to burden of proof. But it is only right to observe, that the proceedings under the Act are quasi-criminal in character and it is the duty of the respondent as prosecutor to make out beyond all s reasonable doubt that there has been a violation of the law

The right of the appellant to the amounts in deposit is, it is argued, contingent on the happening of these events and that until then there was no debt due to him and section 4(1) had no application.

The appellant has only a contingent Tight to the amounts standing in credit in account No. 50180 and that the deposits were made in the bank not in the course of normal banking business but under a special arrangement, it must be held that there was no lending of those amounts by the appellant to the bank within section 4(1) of the Act and the order of the Appellate Board imposing a fine of ₹ 5 lakhs on him under section 23(1)(a) must be held to be illegal and set aside.