TMI Blog1993 (12) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - besides some other documents. While the search of the aforesaid premises of the appellant was in progress, one Mansoor Mohammed Ali Jinnah entered the said premises whose personal search resulted in the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 5,010/- and five bank drafts totally valued at Rs. 15,000/- besides some other documents. On 24-5-1987, the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate, Madras also searched the residential premises of Mansoor Mohammed Ali Jinnah, situated at No. 1, Manicka Maistry St., Royapettah, Madras and recovered and seized Indian currency of Rs. 5,100/- in cash and six bank drafts totally valued at Rs. 36,000/- besides some other documents. From the statements dt. 12-5-1987 and 4-6-1987 given by the appellant it appeared that the appellant was engaged in receiving payments from various persons by order or on behalf of Ahmed Ibrahim and Hameed Dubai, both persons resident outside India and used to make payments to various persons, out of the amounts so received also by order or on behalf of the said Ahmed Ibrahim and Hameed of Dubai either on cash or through bank draft and he was assisted by S/Shri Mansoor Mohamed Ali Jinnah, S.M. Buhari and others in making the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K.M. Seeni Mohamed of No. 35 (1st floor), Gaffoor Sahib St., Royapettah, Madras, Resident of India, without any general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India, abetted Shri K.M. Seeni Mohamed in making payments totalling to Rs. 4,00,000/- by order or on behalf of S/Shri Ahmed Ibrahim and Hameed of Dubai, both persons resident outside India. By receiving the aforesaid payments totalling to Rs. 2,25,43,630/- and by making the aforesaid payments totalling to Rs. 2,23,74,280/- in the manner as aforesaid, the said Shri K.M. Seeni Mohamed appeared to have contravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) respectively of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the FERA"). By abetting the said K.M. Seeni Mohamed in making payments totalling to Rs. 7,00,000/- in the manner as aforesaid, the said S. Mansoor Mohd. Ali Jinnah appeared to have contravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) read with Section 64(2) of the FERA. By abetting the said Shri K.M. Seeni Mohamed in making payments totalling to Rs. 4,00,000/- in the manner as aforesaid, the said Shri S.M. Bukhari appeared to have contravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) read with S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... justice. Learned Central Government Standing Counsel contended that the show cause notice has been served on the appellant properly under Rule 10(c) of the Rules. Under Section 51 of the FERA, the adjudicating Officer is required to hold an enquiry in the prescribed manner after giving a reasonable opportunity for making a representation in the matter. Rule 3 of the Rules provides that in holding an enquiry under Section 51 of the FERA for the purpose of adjudicating under Section 50 of the FERA whether any person has committed contravention, as specified in Sec. 50 of the FERA, the adjudicating Officer shall, in the first instance, issue a notice to such person requiring him to show cause within such period as may be specified in the notice (being not less than 10 days from the date of service thereof), why adjudication proceedings should not be held against him. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 3 of the Rules provides that if, after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person, the adjudicating Officer is of the opinion that adjudication proceedings should be held, he shall issue a notice fixing a date for the appearance of that person either personally or through his lawyer or author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ether the said show cause notice was served on the appellant through local police/officers. The case of the respondents is that the show cause notice was served on 5-10-1988 under Rule 10(c) of the Rule by affixing the same on the outer door of the residential premises of the appellant i.e. at No. 35, Gaffoor Sahib St., First Floor, Royapettah, Madras-14. It is contended by Mr. V.T. Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents that the notice under Rule 10(c) of the Rules was served on the appellant when the same could not be served under sub-clause (a) and (b) of Rule 10 of the Rules. The show cause notice seems to have been served on the appellant under Rule 10(c) of the Rules at the address of the appellant at Roya- pettah, Madras. The Appellate Authority observed in his order that it is not the case of the appellant that the show cause notice was sent to or served on the appellant under Rule 10(c) of the Rules at the wrong address. This observation of the appellate authority is wrong since the show cause notice was itself fixed at No. 35, Gaffoor Sahib St., First Floor, Royapettah, Madras when the postal authorities returned the show cause notice undelivered wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akarai. In the appeal filed by the appellant before the FERA Board, he has given the address at Royapettah, Madras-14; whereas in the C.M.A. filed in this Court, the appellant has given his address at Keelakarai. In the statement given by him before the Enforcement Officer at Madras, the appellant has stated that his native place is Keelakarai and that his address is No. 2/4, North Street, Keelakarai. Summons were sent by the Enforcement Directorates to the appellant under Section 40 of the FERA to his Keelakarai address. The postal receipt, dated 29-7-1987 shows the address of the appellant at Keelakarai. The order was passed by the Joint Secretary to Government of India on 25-9-1987 and the same was communicated to the appellant to his address at Royapettah, Madras and also at Keelakarai. 6.Mr. Abdul Nazeer, Advocate informed the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras-6 by his letter, dated 19-2-1988 that the orders of arrest and the detention under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act or COFEPOSA Act are cancelled with immediate effect in view of the judgment of this Court in W.P. No. 5796 of 1987. In the said letter the appellant's address is given at Keelakarai. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e unable to agree with him for the reasons that in a criminal trial, in order to avoid attendance before criminal courts, the party might have pleaded guilty and suffered the sentence. In this case, it is stated that the appellant was imposed of fine only. But his plea of guilty before the criminal court, will not absolve the respondents of serving the show cause notice on the appellant properly. We are unable to conceive the object of the respondents in not serving the notice at his native address at Keelakarai, but they have chosen to paste the notice at Madras address especially when the Assistant Enforcement Officer came to know then that the appellant had left the place about three years ago. 8A.In the decision in the case of Jothimani Nadar v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate reported in 1984 (3) ECC 319, this Court (S. Natarajan, J., as he then was ) held as follows :- "Section 51 of the Act is the relevant section regarding adjudication and it is a complete and independent provision by itself. Neither in Section 51 of the Act nor in Section 56 of the Act is there a provision that if a prosecution is to be launched, the adjudication proceedings must be stopped at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
