PREM SINGH Vs. SPECIAL DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are directed against the common order dated 30th November 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange ( 'AT ') dismissing the Appeal Nos. 618 of 2005, 619 of 2005 and 620 of 2005 thereby confirming the adjudication order ( 'AO ') dated 13th June 2005 passed by the Special Director ( 'SD '), Directorate of Enforcement ( 'DoE ') holding that the Appellants had contravened Sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 ( 'FERA ') and imposing a total penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs on the Appellant, Prem Singh (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 276 of 2008), and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs each on the Appellants, Rajendra Singh (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 277 of 2008) and Tarlochan Singh (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2008).

(2.) A raid was undertaken by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate ( 'ED ') in the intervening night of 6th/7th March 1991 at the residential premises of Prem Singh at S -291, Greater Kailash, Part -II, New Delhi resulting in the recovery and seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 20,36,000 and some documents. It was stated that during the course of the raid, the Appellant, Rajendra Singh, son -in -law of Prem Singh was also present. He too was searched under Section 34 FERA. The search resulted in the seizure of some documents including Indian currency Rs. 1750. When the car of Rajendra Singh was searched some documents were recovered from the brief case belonging to him. His residential premises at J -209, Saket, New Delhi was also searched on 6th March 1991 resulting in the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 80,000 and certain documents. Searches were also undertaken at the residential premises of Mr. Hanwant Singh father of Tarlochan Singh @ Bittoo at JG -3/81 -C, Vikaspuri.

(3.) RAJENDRA Singh filed a statement before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ( 'ACMM ') on 8th March 1991 itself stating that he had been subjected to torture and threatened that if he did not make a statement in writing as per the decision of the ED, they would implicate his wife in this recovery and put her behind bars. The other two appellants, Prem Singh and Tarlochan Singh, by separate communications dated 18th December 1991 retracted their respective statements on the ground that they were obtained under coercion and threats.