TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contention that the appellant was the proprietor of two firms, i.e. M/s Vikram Sales Corporation and M/s Valifan Sales Agency, the adjudicating authority mentions at para 25 (vii) that the appellant in his statement, stated that both these firms belonged to Sh. Nitin Shah but the latter "appointed" him as the proprietor of the above two firms. It is not clear as to how a proprietor can be appointed. This fact has not been gone into by the original authority at all and no investigation has been conducted to establish the link between the appellant and the firms. Most importantly , no basis has been given by the adjudicating authority as to how he was involved in the entire case of fraudulently transfer of foreign exchange. This is a case whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y junior person and had no role to play in any of the decisions of the Company. As per the Law of Torts, it is the master who is liable. (ii) That the Enforcement Directorate had not only initiated adjudication proceedings against him but the appellant was also booked under COFEPOSA and further for prosecution. While the appellant was acquitted under COFEPOSA, the respondent in their petition before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad on 13.07.2007 categorically stated that after the completion of investigation, the complainant did not find the case suitable for filing the prosecution against the above accused. .. On the basis of the above submissions, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad acq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orporation and M/s Valifan Sales Agency and was also the proprietor of M/s Texman Traders, Ahmedabad. (ii) That Section 56 of the FERA makes it very clear that prosecution proceedings are independent of adjudication proceedings and exoneration from prosecution will not have a bearing on the adjudication proceedings. (iii) That the appellant had given a statement on 07.08.1989 where he has accepted the above facts and this has not been retracted. (iv) The meaning of the word abetting‟ is very wide and would cover aiding, conspiring or instigating also. I have carefully examined the case and all the records. The charges against the appellant is that he has abetted in contravention of the provisions of the FERA to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
