(1.) The appellant was found guilty of contraventions of the provisions of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 by the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate, in his order dated 13th May, 1980 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000 under each of the provisions was imposed. Though this finding was confirmed by the appellate authority, the penalty was reduced on both the counts from Rs. 10,000 to Rs. 6,000. The case of the Enforcement Directorate was that the appellant received a sum of Rs. 76,500 on the account of his brother-in-law, who was residing in Colombo and distributed the amounts to certain persons in India in accordance with the directions of his brother-in-law at Colombo. Both the original as well as the appellate authority, in finding the appellant guilty, relied on the statement of the appellant dated 25th October, 1979, which he had later on retracted on 31st October, 1979.
(2.) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the statement dated 25th October, 1979 was taken under threat and coercion by the Officers, Enforcement Directorate at Madurai, after taking him from his place of work to the office of the Enforcement Directorate at Madurai. He was not a free agent at that time. All external communications were not permitted and statements were obtained. After that it appears that the appellant came to Madras and on instructions from the appellant his counsel wrote a letter on 31st October, 1979 informing the Enforcement Officer that his client had instructed him to state that the statement obtained on 25th October, 1979 was by inducing and illegal methods and that he did not violate any of the Foreign Exchange Regulations.
(3.) The authorities below refused to accept the plea that the statement dated 25th October, 1979 was not voluntary. On the other hand, they were of the view that the retraction was not bona fide and that it was done after consulting his lawyer as a defence to the proceedings.