SUDHERSHAN BOURY Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common order, dated 18 10 1978, passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, in appeal Nos. 1464/ 1977 and 142/1978, on its file, reducing the penalty against the husband from Rs. 6,923 to, Rs. 4,000 and against the wife from Rs. 4,025 to Rs. 2,000.

(2.) Kulbhushan Boury was born in Kenya and was carrying on business in that country which he had to abandon in 1970 due to political upheaval. Though a holder of British passport and a person residing and working for gain in Nairobi for a near half century, his business licence was of renewed by the Kenya Government and ke along with his family landed in India for consideration of permanent residence. Kulbhushan Boury and Smt. Sudershan Boury were having joint bank accounts and in England subscribing to a life insurance policy. Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, after holding adjudication proceedings found both of them guilty of contravention of Ss. 4 (1) and 9 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947 and Ss. 8(1) and 14 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 and imposed penalty on Kulbhushan Boury, at Rs. 6,925 and against his wife Smt. Sudershan Boury at Rs. 4,025. Aggrieved by the said orders, they went up in appeals before the Board in appeal Nos. 1464/1977 and 142/1978. In the appeals which were heard together by the Member of the Board, the learned Member has observed :

(3.) Aggrieved by the quantum of penalty levied in the two cases the above appeals are instituted by Kulbhushan Boury and Smt. Sudershan Boury, before this.Court. Learned counsel Sri K. R. D. Karanth, submitted that both the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras and the Board having found that the transactions were not aimed at money spinning and as such a deterrent attitude was not necessary, have still imposed rather heavy penalties and hence he submitted before us that the penalty should be reduced. As against that Sri Shivashankar Bhat, learned Senior standing Counsel for Central Government, submitted that no appeal could be Instituted before this Court, unless a question of law was involved and there was no question of law as such involved in these appeals and therefore the appeals were not maintainable. He further submitted that the penalties imposed could not be considered as heavy. The polats, therefore, that arise for our consideration in these appeals are :