UNION OF INDIA Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Appellate Board dated April 9, 1984, whereby the order of the Assistant Director imposing the penalty of Rs. 800 because of the contravention of the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) was imposed.

(2.) The charge framed against the respondent Mohinder Singh was that during the year 1973 he, though resident outside of India, acquired immoveable property situate in India worth Rs. 9207 without any previous general or special permission of the Reserve Bank of India in contravention of Section 31(1) of the Act. During the course of enquiry it was found that Shri Mohinder Singh had acquired immoveable property worth Rs. 9207 in India and is still holding the same without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Accordingly, a show cause notice for contravention of Section 31(1) of the Act was issued. When the case was fixed for personal hearing on July 18, 1983, the counsel for Mohinder Singh admitted the charge and requested for lenient view to be taken. The learned Assistant Director, after going through the registration deeds for the purchase of the said property found that Mohinder Singh is a foreign citizen and a person resident outside India, since he is staying in U.K. for the last 15 years and is holding property in India without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. Therefore, he was held liable to pay penalty of Rs. 800. Further, a direction was also given that Mohinder Singh should apply for permission to the Reserve Bank of India for holding the said property in India. Dissatisfied with the same, Mohinder Singh filed the appeal. In appeal, the Appellate Board took the view that since the consent of the respondent was not obtained in writing to admit the charge, the admission of the counsel was of no consequence. On examining the material on the record, it was found that there is nothing on the record to show that the payment of the consideration relateable to one-third share of the respondent amounting to Rs. 9207 was made by his father on behalf of or under instructions from the respondents. Nor was there anything to show that the respondent had accepted the beneficial interest in the alleged acquisition of the land which is the subject matter of the charge. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the order of the Assistant Director was set aside. Dissatisfied with the same, the Union of India has filed the second appeal in this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that once the charge was admitted by the counsel for the respondent the same was binding on him. The law did not require that he should be given a written application by the respondent duly signed by him authorising his counsel to make such an admission. It was further contended that on the record also the finding of the Appellate Board is wrong.