https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221717 In a prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, discharge was refused because the prosecution materials still disclosed an offence. Even if the foreign exchange was assumed to belong to another person, the admitted position was that the petitioner possessed it for deposit in an NRE account, and the prosecution could contend that this amounted to borrowing foreign exchange otherwise than through an authorised dealer, attracting section 8(1). The court also noted that the burden of proving lawful possession of foreign exchange beyond the permissible limit lay on the petitioner under section 71. The revision therefore failed and discharge was declined. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Mar 2013 07:58:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221717 In a prosecution under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, discharge was refused because the prosecution materials still disclosed an offence. Even if the foreign exchange was assumed to belong to another person, the admitted position was that the petitioner possessed it for deposit in an NRE account, and the prosecution could contend that this amounted to borrowing foreign exchange otherwise than through an authorised dealer, attracting section 8(1). The court also noted that the burden of proving lawful possession of foreign exchange beyond the permissible limit lay on the petitioner under section 71. The revision therefore failed and discharge was declined. Case-Laws FEMA Tue, 07 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=221717