TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 518X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed with. - Criminal Appeal No. 949/2005 - - - Dated:- 21-4-2016 - MR. A.K. SIKRI AND MR. PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ For the Appellant : Mr. P. K. Manohar,Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, Sr. Adv., Mr. T. C. Sharma, Adv., Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv., Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, Adv., Mr. Rupesh Kumar, Adv. And Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv. ORDER An order of preventive detention dated 25.11.2003 was passed against the detenue [husband of the appellant herein] as well as few other persons. This order which runs into more than 25 pages gives detailed account of the Hawala transactions which were carried out by a gang of some offenders and to facilitate such transactions aid of many persons including the detenue was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hok Kumar Tarachand Jain and others for receiving funds from local persons and to transfer it to Shri Surendran and Shri V. Abdul Kareem, and his associates either by transfer from fictitious bank accounts maintained by them in Mumbai or by cash Shri Suresh Kumar Jain of M/s. Sweety International (P) Limited, Mumbai had also made payments in cash and by bank pay orders to Shri Thakkar or his employees as per the directions of Shri Laxman Akani of Dubai, who in turn had received foreign exchange from Shri Asarulla Rakka Khan of Dubai. The total transactions thus carried out in the racket exceeded ₹ 600 crores, which were in violations of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulations of the country from time to time. Details of the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng this detention order, the appellant herein filed writ petition in the High Court of Madras which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 16.08.2004. During the arguments, learned counsel for the appellant conceded that the bank account was opened in the name of the detenue in which money was deposited which was rooted through the outside channels. It is also admitted that the cheques were issued from the said account. The only defence is that the detenue did not know about the disbursement of the money on behalf of the person residing outside the country and that the detenue was made to sign blank cheques. It is further argued that such a transaction would not amount to any offence under Section 3 of the Foreign Exchange Management ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
