DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT Vs. RAVINDER AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts of the case as revealed by the prosecution succinctly stated are that Ravinder Aggarwal was present outside the Central Telegraph Office Building, Eastern Court, New Delhi on 12-9-1966. Shri K. L. Thukral, Enforcement Officer of the Directorate of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, apprehended him and searched his person. The search yielded United States currency notes of various denominations amounting to 1080 dollars. Shri Thukral prepared a Panchnama (Ex. PWI/A) evidencing this recovery and it was attested apart from Shri K. Vijayan, Chief Enforcement Officer, by Gurmej Singh and R. R. Sharma. The Panchnama was signed by Ravinder Aggarwal as well and a copy thereof was given to him. Ravinder Aggarwal then accompanied the officers of the Enforcement Directorate to their office situated nearby and there he was interrogated by Shri Vijayan. In reply to the questions put to him he made a detailed statement in his own handwriting (Exhibit PW1/B) intimating how he had acquired 1080 U.S. dollar currency notes and in what circumstances the same were recovered from him along with a slip embodying calculations concerned with his previous dealings in foreign exchange. On the same day Shri A. J. Rana, Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, issued a memorandum (Ex. PW1/E) to Ravinder Aggarwal under Section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') to supply information and documents bearing, inter alia on the recovery of 1080 US dollars and a slip containing calculations recovered from the pocket of his pant at 10.15 A.M. on 12-9-1966. Ravinder Aggarwal sent a reply to this directive in his own hand through registered post (Exhibit PWI/F) submitting that he had made a confessional statement before the officers of the Enforcement Directorate voluntarily on 12-9-66 and as the facts stated therein were true and correct the same be treated as reply to the said directive. Perhaps taking this reply to be too cryptic and inadequate he made another reply (Exhibit PW1/C) to that very directive on 26th September, 1966 wherein it was alleged that the currency notes of 1080 US dollars recovered from him on 12-9-66 were brought by him from M/s. Krishna & Sons, Jewellers, Connaught Place. New Delhi, that he had neither purchased this currency nor was it meant for sale by him and that he had gone to the Eastern Court with these notes under the orders of his master. The Director of Enforcement issued a notice to Ravinder Aggarwal on May 9, 1967 under Section 23D of the Act requiring him to show cause in writing within 14 days why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by the said section be not held against him for contravention of Section 4(1) of the Act and why the amount involved in the contravention should not be confiscated under Section 23(l)(b) of the Act (Exhibit PW1/C). Replying to this letter Ravinder Aggarwal stated (Exhibit PW1/D) that he had already given his explanation regarding possession of 1080 US dollars in his letter dated 26th September, 1966 and denied that he had acquired and sold any foreign exchange in the manner stated in the notice otherwise. He appeared before the Director in the course of the adjudication proceedings and pleaded guilty. He was then afforded opportunity through memo dated February 5, 1968 (Exhibit PW1/H) to show whether he had previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India for buying otherwise acquiring or selling the relevant foreign exchange and this notice was followed by another notice to the same effect dated July 15, 1968 (Exhibit PWI/L). No such permission was, however, claimed to have been obtained and consequently a complaint was filed by the Director of Enforcement for his prosecution under Section 23(l)(b) read with Section 4(1) of the Act.

(2.) The case was tried by Shri A. S. Dhugga, Magistrate 1st Class, New Delhi. He found at the end of the proceedings that out of the four witnesses of the recovery on (R. R. Sharma) was not produced, another (Gurmej Singh) did lot support the prosecution and the third (Vijayan) did not say that the recovery was made in his presence and then the currency alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused was not produced in Court and it was not shown to be legal tender. In view of these findings he gave the accused the benefit of doubt and acquitted him. The appeal under consideration has been filed by the Director of Enforcement.

(3.) K. L. Thukral, Enforcement Officer, appeared as Public Witness . 1 and deposed that he had apprehended Ravinder Aggarwal in front of the Central Telegraph Office on 12th September, 1966 and searched his person in the presence of Gurmej Singh and R. R. Sharma and 1080 US currency dollars were recovered from him. Public Witness .1 stated further that he had prepared Panchnama Public Witness .I/A giving details of the recovered foreign currency, it was attested by the witnesses, and one copy of it was given to the accused on his signing the Panchnama at PW1/A4. The witness went on to say that the place where the accused was apprehended was road side and it was not feasible to make inquiries from him at the spot, he was, therefore, asked by him (the witness) to accompany him to the office and there the accused made his statement in his presence to Shri Vijayan (Public Witness 1/B) in his own hand. He has also testified that Ravinder Aggarwal had sent his the reply Public Witness 1/D signed by him at Public Witness 1/D 1 to notice Public Witness 1/C and he had made replies Public Witness 1/F and Public Witness 1/G signed by him at Public Witness 1/F 1 and PW1/G1 respectively to the directive PW1/E.