AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (3) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....veen Kumar Mehta, being the son and one Shri Rikhab Chand Sirohya @ Rikhab Chand Jain, requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be proceeded against for contravention of Sections 8(1) and Section 8(2) read with Section 64(2). 3. In the SCN dated 23rd April 1986, it was stated that the officers of the ED had simultaneously searched the residential premises at L-33, Kalkaji, New Delhi; Shop No. 57, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi; Stall Nos. 14, 16 and 17, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi and a scooter bearing registration No. DIH 9647 parked in front of Shop No.57, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Incriminating documents and Indian currency of Rs. 2,50,500 was stated to have been recovered from the residential premises occupied by Shri Ram Lal Mehta. From Shop No.57, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi, one diplomat spiral note book with 19 written pages was recovered. From the dickey of the scooter, cash of Rs. 1,50,000 and a black diary of the Bank of Rajasthan Limited was recovered. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the stalls 14, 16 and 17, Shankar Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The search at the residential pre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....allegations were an after-thought and were baseless. 7. In the impugned Adjudication Order ("AO") dated 30th August 1990 passed by the SD, ED, extensive reference was made to the statements made by the two Appellants and Shri Rikhab Chand Jain, apart from the statements made by certain others. At the outset, the SD recorded in the AO that retractions made by Mr. Rikhab Chand Jain and Pawan Kumar were "rather intriguing as their statements are not inculpatory." As a result, according to the SD, despatching of retractions "by all the persons, though they have not implicated themselves is meaningless." According to the SD, it conveyed the message that "they had been made firstly for the sake of retraction and secondly at the behest of someone else to bail him out of the alleged contravention, which the Department had been investigating." According to the SD, Shri Parveen Kumar Mehta had explained the various entries in the seized diaries concerning the illegal sale and purchase of foreign exchange. The statements made by Shri Rikhab Chand Jain, Shri Pawan Kumar, and Shri Parveen Kumar Mehta revealed that Shri Parveen Kumar was indulging in the sale and purchase of foreign exchange.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d carefully the statements of the Appellants and Shri Rikhab Chand Jain made under Section 40 FERA. Taking up the statement made by Shri Parveen Kumar Mehta first, it is seen that he does not implicate himself. In response to a specific question "was any other business being carried out secretly by you and Shri Rikhab Chand Jain from Shop No. 57?", he answered: "I know that Shri Rikhab Chand Jain was indulging in doing the business of illicit purchase and sale of various foreign currencies."As regards the modalities of the transactions, he explained that "frequent telephone calls used to come on telephone No. 3313242 which is installed in the Shop No. 57, inquiring about rate of exchange of various foreign currencies from Rikhab Chand Jain. Since Rikhab Chand Jain used to go out frequently for purchasing foreign exchange I used to receive message in his absence and used to pass on such messages to Shri Rikhab Chand Jain on his return to the shop. He used to tell me to keep such talks secrets. He also used to tell me that I should not disclose his secret activities to anyone else including to my father Shri Ram Lal Mehta. This is how I know that he (Rikhab Chand Jain) used to sell a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 14. It has been explained in several decisions of the Supreme Court that the statement made by a co-accused cannot be relied upon against other co-accused if it is not inculpatory of the person making the statement. It cannot be used as substantive evidence against the other co-accused. In Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) 12 SCC 161 it was explained that "if an accused makes a confession in terms of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise, his confession may be held to be admissible in evidence only in terms of Section 30 of the Evidence Act and not otherwise. If it is merely a statement before any authority, the maker may be bound thereby but not those who had been implicated therein." In Naresh J. Sukhawani v. Union of India it was held that a statement made before the Custom Officials under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a material piece of evidence because "that material incriminates the Petitioner inculpating him in the contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act." In that case it was held that such a statement can be used to connect the Petitioner in the contravention since it clearly inculpates not only the maker of the statement but also ....