TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 633X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort the Board ). In a case arising out of a penalty proceeding under S.23 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (for short the Act ) for violation of S.4(1) of the Act. The respondent was the owner of a car and on 18-8-1971, when the said car was intercepted by the Customs Authorities, a packet was found containing foreign exchange both US dollars and pounds sterling amounting to ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned by the respondent would not constitute the ingredients of offence under S.4(1) of the Act and, accordingly, set aside the order of penalty, though the order directing confiscation of the foreign exchange was affirmed. The matter was then carried in appeal to the High Court under S.54 of the Act. The High Court by the impugned judgment, affirmed the decision of the Member of the Board and came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate the culpability of the respondent in the matter being in possession of foreign exchange in contravention of the Act and, therefore, the Board as well as the High Court were not justified in interfering with the order of penalty imposed by the original authority. S.4(1) of the Act reads thus: 4. (1) Except with the previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank no person other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly absent. The expression acquire must have a definite connotation and it must indicate something more than mere possession. There is not an iota of material to indicate even that the respondent knew what the packet contained when it was delivered to him or when the packet was recovered from the car being intercepted. He has taken a plea that it was handed over to him at Bombay to be carried to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
