TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 281X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the statements made by him on 1.6.1976 and 2.6.1976 by claiming that they were taken from him by coercion by the Enforcement Officer, and that he had not committed any contravention as charged, and which are listed in para 1 of the order of Deputy Director. 2. Respondent claimed that appellant during the period of 1974 to 1976 had received Rs. 25,000/- on ten occasions from a local person under order of one R. Muthuswamy of Colombo, and made payments under his instructions to various parties in India, and further, between the years 1966 and 1973, on 29 occasions, he had received Rs. 50,000/- from a local person by order or on behalf of the said Muthuswamy, and made payments to various parties in India on his behalf, and therefore, he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amounts are seen from the different letters seized when added will not exactly equal to the amounts indicated in the four show cause notices....... . The claim made by appellant in the two statements would prove that he had received amounts on behalf of Muthuswamy of Sri Lanka. Hence, the culpability of appellant was arrived at by looking into the contents of these seized letters, for amounts mentioned therein, and thereafter, for the entirety of the amount involved in the show cause notice, by a process of surmise alone, the contents of the said statements had been relied upon. This is a matter in which solely depending upon the statements, action had not been initiated, so as to attract the decision of this Court in C.M.A. Nos. 119 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h had taken and returned by him has been forwarded. Hence, his father-in-law sending the amount by draft in India, out of his funds cannot tantamount to any contravention committed by appellant. This letter nowhere states that Muthuswamy had sent any amount to his brother through unauthorised source, and thereby asking for that amount to be sent to appellant. Appellant had stated that Muthuswamy was his God Father, and had reared him up when he was in Ceylon during his early years of life. Hence, this letter is also of no help to respondent in framing the charges. 7. The other letter relied upon by respondent is dated 20-5-1976 written by Muthuswamy to his brother i.e. (father-in-law of appellant). In the opening paragraph, he states that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
