S K JAIN Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned tribunal has erred in relying upon the retracted statement given by Mr. J.K. Jain and therefore, a substantial question of law arises for consideration.

(2.) Mr. J.K. Jain is an employee of the present appellant. From his residence in a search on 3rd May, 1991 foreign currency and travelers cheques were seized by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He had stated that the foreign currency and travelers cheques belonged to and were entrusted to him by his employer Mr. S.K. Jain, the appellant herein. The Central Bureau of Investigation referred the matter to Enforcement Directorate in January, 1995 in view of the foreign currency and travelers cheques which were seized in the raid conducted on 3rd May, 1991.

(3.) The Enforcement Directorate issued notice to both Mr. S.K. Jain, the appellant and Mr. J.K. Jain. Mr. S.K. Jain, the appellant in his statement recorded on 14th April, 1995 admitted that Mr. J.K. Jain was his employee and even after the raid on 3rd May, 1991, he had continued to be his employee. He had further stated that Mr. J.K. Jain had never cheated or misappropriated his funds. Mr. S.K. Jain however refused to answer other questions claiming immunity and protection under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution on the ground that Central Bureau of Investigation had already initiated prosecution against him.