BHAGWANDAS GOENKA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two connected appeals instituted by Bhagwandas Goenka, against the convictions and sentences of the learned Chief Presidency Magistrate in C. C. Nos. 6910 and 6911 of 1956, convicting this appellant under Section 4 (3) read with Section 23, and Sections 4 (1) and 9 read with Notification No. 12 (13) F-1/47 dated 25-3-1947 and Section 23 respectively of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-upon each charge. The cases were tried and dealt with by the learned Magistrate separately, but, as a matter of fact, the transactions are inter-related and have to be viewed as a whole. They mainly occurred within the period 26-7-1951 and 14-9-1951, when the, appellant visited the United States along with his wife Saroj Goenka, who was a co-accused in the lower Court in C. C. No. 6911 of 1956, but was discharged. Before proceeding into the facts, it will be convenient to set out the charges, and also to scrutinise, in this context itself, the relevant provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act which the appellant is supposed to have infringed.

(2.) IN C. C. No. 6910 of 1958 in the Court below, the charge against the appellant was that he failed to Utilise a portion of the foreign exchange allowed to him for his visit to the United States, namely, 500 dollars out of the 1800 dollars sanctioned, and that, instead of selling or transferring without delay this unutilised sum to an authorised dealer in foreign exchange in India, he deposited this amount of 500 dollars in the joint account of himself and his wife with the National City Bank of New York, and thus committed an offence under Section 4 (3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, read with Section 23 of the Act.

(3.) SECTION 23 is the punitive Section under the Act, and. as amended, Section 23 (a) runs as follows:-- " If any person contravenes the provisions of Section 4, Section 5, Section 9 or Sub-section (2) of Section 12 or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder, he shall (a) be liable to such penalty not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange. . . . (b) upon conviction by a Court, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, Or with both". In this context itself, we might also note three other relevant provisions. Under Section 19 (2), the Reserve Bank is clothed with the power to require any person, by order in writing, to furnish, or to obtain and furnish, to the Bank with such information, book or other document as may be required. Under Section 22 of the Act, it is specified that no person should give any information or make any statement which he knows or has reasonable cause to believe to be false, or not true in any material particular, when complying with any order or direction under Section 19. Failure to comply with such order or direction is made specifically punishable under Section 23 (1a) (a) of the Act. In brief, the directives issued by the Reserve Bank under Section 19 are, undeniably, interrogatories or demands for submission of documentary material, which have to be complied with in terrorem, without concealment Or misrepresentation. Lastly, we might refer to Section 24 (2) of the Act, which states that where a person is prosecuted for contravening the provisions of Section 4 (3) which we have earlier set forth, the burden of proving that the foreign exchange required by such person was used for the purpose for which permission to acquire it was granted, lies upon him.