TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 23(1B), and secondly, contravened Section 5(1)(c) by making a payment of ₹ 25,000 to a person in India by order and on behalf of a person resident outside India. It was claimed by respondents that appellant was employed under one Jamal Mohamed, who was carrying on business of making compensatory payments at No. 185, Angappa Naicken Street, Madras-1, on a monthly salary of ₹ 100 and that he was making compensated payments along with the son-in-law of his master. At 11 a.m. on 4-5-1973, one Veerappan phoned his master stating that he had received a chit from Kuala Lumpur for payment of ₹ 50,000 to him, and that the said amount may be delivered at No. 7/5, Thatha Muthiappan Street, Madras. Hence, the appellant wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ual particulars. On 5-5-1973, the appellant addressed the Director of Enforcement retracting the statement made by him on the previous day, and likewise, Veerappan also by letter dated 8-5-1973 retracted his statement, and both of them claimed that they were taken from them under threat and coercion. 2. Deputy Director by his order dated 30-8-1979, imposed a penalty of ₹ 2,000 on the first charge and ₹ 1,000 on the second charge, and also directed confiscation of the amount of ₹ 50,000. On appeal, the appellate authority confirmed it, and therefore, this appeal is filed claiming that the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration: 1. Could Muthayee be treated as a non-resident? 2. Were not the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceeding on the basis that she was a non-resident. It is contended by Mr. Kareem, learned Counsel for the appellant that in the show cause notice, no name of the non-resident having been given, and in spite of a specific request having been made in para. 3 of the reply issued by the appellant's counsel, it was not proper to proceed on the basis that she was a non-resident, and that, herself and her husband had been instructing for remittance of money through unauthorised channels in this country. The manner in which the proceedings has gone through and the explanation offered go to show that there was no difficulty experienced by not mentioning the name of the non-resident in the show cause notice. Hence, no prejudice had been caused on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is claimed that, he was only a carrier, and he was not responsible for the contravention alleged to have been committed. Appellant having carried the amount, knowing quite well that it was a compensatory payment made in an unauthorised manner, and no doubt at the behest of the master, but taking all the responsibility for the consequences for what had been done by him, it had resulted in contravention of Sections 5(1)(c) and 23(1B) of the Act. 7. The next point taken is regarding the hearsay evidence about what appellant had heard at 11 a.m. on 4-5-1973 when Veerappan had phoned up to his employer. It is only pursuant to the conversation, appellant had carried the amount of ₹ 50,000 to the place mentioned by Veerappan over the pho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articulars furnished by both of them fit in with the ultimate act of the appellant in carrying huge amount of ₹ 50,000 to the place of business of Veerappan whom he had never known earlier. If really these statements were extracted by threat or coercion, and there was any valid reason for appellant carrying the said amount on that day, a mention would have been made in the reply sent through his counsel that the cash belonged to appellant out of his earnings and not otherwise. Hence, the plea of threat and coercion is only an opportunistic claim to avoid the consequence which appellant deserves for what he has done. 9. One other plea put forth is that the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine. As held in Kanungo Co. v. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
