ASSTT DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT MADRAS Vs. M A WAJID HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the complainant against the judgment dated 6-4-1993 acquitting the accused for the offence u/S. 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) punishable under Sec. 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short 'the Act') in CC No. 173 of 1991 on the file of the Special Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the accused M. A. Wajid went to Kuwait in the year 1977 for employment and worked there as a salesman and returned back to India on 14-9-1986. The Enforcement Directorate on reliable information that the accused was indulging in receiving heavy payments from persons in India and making payments to persons in India on behalf of persons residing outside India without any general or special permission from the Reserve Bank of India, searched the premises of the accused at Muradnagar on 17-8-1987 in pursuance of the search warrant issued by the Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, under Sec. 37 of the Act, in the presence of mediators and seized six documents under cover of mediators report, Ex. P-2 and recorded the statement of the accused on 17-8-1987, 18-8-1987 and 15-9-1987 by PW-1, the Chief Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad, under Sec. 40 of the Act. It is alleged that the accused made voluntary statements admitting the receipt of monies of Rs. 9,15,000.00 from persons in India on behalf of Mohd. Omer at Kuwait and distributed the said amount as per the list received by him along with the monies and the list did not contain full address and since the persons received monies at a selected place after fixing prior appointment and that the list and documents pertaining to the transactions were destroyed soon after completing the distribution work. The accused was arrested u/S. 35 of the Act and produced before the Court on 18-8-1987 and the Addl. Director after considering the material on record found the accused guilty for contravention of the provisions of Sec. 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 2,50,000.00 under each count and filed complaint against the accused.

(3.) The Assistant Director of Enforcement under the Act and the then Chief Enforcement Officer was examined as PW-1 and Exs. P-1 to P-6 were marked. The defence of the accused was that the statements under Exs. P-2 to P-5 were obtained by threat and coercion and none were examined on his behalf.