2002 (12) TMI 664 - AT - FEMA

Tribunal Overturns FERA Penalty Due to Insufficient Evidence; Orders Release of Seized Amount.

H.N. Venkatesha Versus Directorate of Enforcement

H.N. Venkatesha Versus Directorate of Enforcement - TMI Issues:1. Violation under section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973.2. Validity of evidence and statements.3. Voluntariness of confessional statements.4. Corroboration of confessional statements.5. Legal standard of proof in FERA cases.Analysis:1. The appellant was found guilty under section 9(1)(b) of FERA, 1973 for receiving payments from abroad without proper authorization. The appellant's defense was based on denying the charge due to lack of material evidence against him and questioning the source of payments. The Adjudicating Officer relied on the appellant's statements and seized documents to establish the guilt, leading to the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 25,000.2. The Adjudicating Officer considered the appellant's statements, seized documents, and the statement of another individual, Shri Rajesh Jain, to establish the offense. However, the reliance on Shri Rajesh Jain's statement was questioned as it was not recorded before the Investigating Officer of the Enforcement, and Shri Jain had retracted his statement, raising concerns about the admissibility and reliability of the evidence.3. The appellant's counsel argued that the confessional statements were not voluntary, citing instances where the appellant retracted his statements multiple times. The repeated retractions raised doubts about the voluntariness of the statements, indicating possible coercion or pressure on the appellant to provide self-incriminating statements.4. The legal standard for corroboration of confessional statements was highlighted, emphasizing the need for corroborating evidence in material particulars to support the veracity of the statements. The lack of substantial corroboration and the questionable nature of the evidence presented cast doubt on the reliability of the appellant's statements and the case against him.5. The judgment referred to legal precedents emphasizing the quasi-criminal nature of FERA proceedings and the requirement to prove cases beyond a reasonable doubt. The court stressed the importance of meeting this high standard of proof, which was deemed lacking in the present case due to inconsistencies, lack of corroboration, and doubts regarding the voluntariness of the appellant's statements.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant and ordering the release of the seized amount within a specified timeframe, highlighting the insufficiency of evidence and the failure to meet the legal standard of proof in establishing the offense under FERA.