DEVILAL GANESHLAL MEHTA Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under section 54 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 against the order of the Appellate Board constituted the said Foreign Exchange Regulation Act confirming the order imposing penalty of Rs. 25,000/- upon the present appellant for having contravened the provisions of section 8(1) of the said Act.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows :--- On 17-11-1975, upon receiving information from reliable sources, the Officers of the authority under the Act raided Room No. 3, Ghaswala Building, 18 Mangesa Shenoy Street, Bombay-1. It was not disputed before the authorities below nor it is disputed before me by Mr. Chopda, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that the premises were shop-cum- residential premises and they were held by one Vijaykumar Trilokji Shah, as a tenant. There is no dispute that the present appellant was also staying in these premises and one Babulal P. Talesara, was also staying there. At the time of the raid, however, one Babulal P. Talesara was present. During the raid certain foreign currencies were discovered and seized. Likewise the rent receipt showing that Vijaykumar was tenant of the premises was also found in the papers. It appears that one note-book was found and on page No. 1 of the same, certain notings were found. There is no dispute that the notings were in the hand writing of the present appellant. But noting has been brought on record to show in what way the noting related to the foreign currency notes which were seized during the day. From the facts found and order passed by the Dy. Director of Enforcement it appears that the said Babulal stated in his statement that the present appellant was his old friend, right from the days of their schooling at Kankroli, Nathdwara. Rajasthan. He further appears to have stated that he had come to Bombay about a month previously and was working with Devilal, the present appellant on a monthly salary of Rs. 200/-; that he was staying with Devilal in the aforesaid premises and that his job was to attend to the telephone calls at Shri Ddvilals premise. It is the contention of the present appellant that at the time of the raid he had been to his native place in Rajasthan. When he returned to Bombay he learnt about the raid. There is no dispute that he himself presented before the authorities who effected the raid. He was served with a notice to show cause why proceedings against him should not be taken for offence under the provisions of section 8(1) and (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act.

(3.) The present appellant filed his reply with a view to show cause. He contended that he was only a sub-tenant of Vijaykumar Trilokji; that he was not in exclusive possession of the room in question and that the foreign exchange currency which was found in the premise did not belong to him at all. So far as the noting on page 1 of the document was concerned, he contended that he had written those calculations but they were written under the instruction of VIjaykumar.