S MUTHIAH PILLAI Vs. FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION APPELLATE BOARD SHASTRI BHAVAN Ï¿½AÏ¿½WING ROOM NO 4 NO 422 4TH FLOOR NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is one preferred under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The appellant faced three charges before the Additional Director of Enforcement. Of the three charges, we are concerned only with the first charge, which reads as follows:

(2.) SECTION 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Act, 1947, cited in the first charge, is in the following terms. �5. Restrictions on payments: (1) Save as may be provided in, and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this subsection which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall. (a) . . . (aa) receive, otherwise than through an authorised dealer, any payment by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India�. SECTION 23-B of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, also cited in first charge, is to the following effect:

(3.) BEFORE us, Mr.K.Ramagopal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that mere possession of the letter and the visit of the appellant to the premises of M/s.Shanmugha Credit Corporation would not by themselves constitute � attempt to receive� in contravention of section 5(1)(aa) within the meaning of section 23-B and even accepting the factual features put against the appellant they would only indicate a preparation and nothing more. When we take note of the ratio of the pronouncements of the highest court in the land on the question and apply the same to the facts of the case, we feel obliged to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. A distinction between preparation and attempt has always been kept in mind by the Court, while dealing with cases of attempt to commit offences.