TMI Blog2008 (4) TMI 781X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) of FERA, 1973 for having made payment of ₹ 2.2 lakhs to Shri Vinod Goel, a person resident outside India through Shri Sanjeev Goel, without the permission of RBI. The appellant has made payment of 50% of the amount of penalty in compliance of the order of this Tribunal where presently this appeal is taken up for final disposal on merits. 3. I have carefully considered the rival submissions of both the parties and gone through the record and relevant Law. It is argued by ld. Counsel, Shri. Alex Joseph, on behalf of the appellant that the case of the appellant is squarely covered under Section 3 of Remittance of Foreign Exchange and Investment in Foreign Exchange Bond (Immunities and Exemptions) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or ₹ 2 lakhs on 2-1-92 and deposited the same in his SB A/c No. 18727 maintained with Union Bank of India, Mumbai. The said cheque was signed by Shri Sanjeev Goel on behalf of Shri Vinod Goel and as against the said cheque he had paid ₹ 2,20,000/- which included 10% premium. 5. It is contended by ld. Advocate on behalf of the appellant that the confessional statement of the appellant was not admissible in evidence because the appellant retracted the aforesaid statement vide his letter dated 21-12-94 stating that the statements were extracted under coercion, threats and inducement but there is nothing on record from which it can be gathered that inducement, torture, duress, etc., has been practiced upon the appellant by the of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the retracted confession is true, that part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base the conviction. However, prudence and practice require that court would seek assurance getting corroboration from other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 6. In the present case the statement of the appellant has been fully corroborated by the attended circumstantial evidence of the case. The appellant specifically admitted that the cheque was received for premium at the rate 10%. Moreover, there is nothing on record except gift deed to show that the appellant had any acquaintance with Shri Vinod Goel which speak volumes to substantiate the charges against the appellant. The appellant was required to prove the outflow of love and aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ruary 1998, the dead bodies of wife and daughter were found from the house who were found strangulated. The accused continued traceless till he was arrested after about ten days on 17th February, 1998 who failed to offer any explanation in defence. The Court observed that incriminating circumstances formed complete chain to prove the guilt of accused. The Court observed: There is considerable force in the argument of counsel for the State that in the facts of this case as well it should be held that the respondent having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be held that he failed to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 11. The Supreme Court further confirmed this principle in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. - JT 1996 (6) S.C. 739 where it observed as follows : In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the principle underlying section 106, of Evidence Act, the burden to establish those facts is cast on the person concerned; and if he fails to establish or explain those facts, an adverse inference of facts may arise against him, which coupled with the presumptive evidence adduced by the prosecution or the Department would rebut the initial presumption of innocence in favour of that person, and in the result prove him guilty. As pointed out by Best in Law of Evidence, (12th Edn. Article 320, page 291), the presumption of innocence is, no doubt, presumption juris; but every day s practice shows that it may be successfully encountered by the presumption of guilt arising from the recent (unexplained) possession of stolen property , though t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
