Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1999 (8) TMI 803

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lso to pay a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The case in brief for the disposal of the revision is as follows : The officials from Enforcement Directorate proceeded to Airport on receipt of information i.e., on 19-8-1997 and as a result of the search of the person and baggage of the accused, U.S. dollars 1,90,000 and other documents were seized under a cover of mahazar. The accused also gave a statement and he has violated the proviso of section 8(1) in having acquired U.S. dollars without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India. He was arrested and produced before the Court. The accused, a person in India, other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange has contravened and viol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....4 to the Airport and he also corroborated the testimony of P.W.4. P. Ws. 1 to 5 have identified the accused also during trial before the Court. 5. Ex. P 1, the mahazar contained the details regarding the currencies and documents seized from the accused. The statement from the accused was also recorded and after a period of one week only, the accused had retracted from his statement. It is, therefore, clear from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 5 that the accused was in possession of so much U.S. dollars without any proper authority. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the petitioner was only a carrier of currency and he cannot be punished for any offence. The currency was given to him for the purpose of handing ....