TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r i.e., in the year 1992 itself. However, the final order in Appeal No.593 of 1992 was passed on 04.02.2010 i.e., after an abnormal interval of 18 years. The judicial Parlance is ''the delayed justice is denied justice''. 4. On perusal of the entire records, we understand that the Deputy Director of Enforcement, who is the first respondent herein, had mainly found basis on the alleged statement of the appellant, which was said to have been recorded by the Officers of the Directorate of Enforcement. The first respondent also had been heavily banking on the document(document serial No.35, sheet No.11 of bunch A) alleged to have been seized from the premises of one Mr.Jahubar Nissar. 5. The appellant's main contention is that the alleged statement dated 30.04.1991 was obtained under duress and threat of arrest, coercion and intimidation of family members. According to the appellant, he had retracted the above statement at the earliest point of time and that the so-called statement had got no value and hence it ought to have been eschewed completely. It is also the contention of the appellant that the statement dated 30.04.1991, which was subsequently retracted b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is also stated that out of Rs. 2,20,000/-, he had spent a sum of Rs. 90,000/- and the remaining balance was kept in his residence, which was said to have been seized by the Officers of the Directorate of Enforcement Wing on 30.04.1991. 8. A show cause notice dated 07.06.1991 was issued to the appellant. In this notice, it is alleged that the appellant had received a sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- on behalf of Mohamed Hilal, a resident of Kuwait, contrary to the provisions of Section 9 (1) (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and therefore, he was asked to show cause as to why an adjudication proceedings should not be initiated against him and the seized amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- should not be confiscated. It is important to note here that in this show cause notice dated 07.06.1991, reliance was placed on the document said to have been seized from the premises of one Jahubar Nissar. 9. That on 17.06.1991, the appellant had given a reply disowning the statement dated 30.04.1991, saying that the statement was obtained from him under duress, threat of arrest, coercion and intimidation of the family members. In his reply, the appellant had specifically refuted the alleged acquaintance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracted, subsequently in the reply given by the appellant. He has also argued that in his statement, the appellant had admitted everything including the receipt of Rs. 2,20,000/- from the unknown person on instructions given by Mr.Mohamed Hilal from Kuwait. 16. In this regard, we would like to point out much of the confusion relative to the exact meaning of the word ''confession'' is the result of failure to distinguish between ''admission'' and ''confession''. A statement or a declaration of an independent fact from which guilt may be inferred is not a confession. It is an admission of a particular fact pertinent to the issue and evidence of that fact, but it is not ''confession''. The distinction drawn between admission and confession in criminal law is substantial one. Confession involves a voluntary acknowledgement of guilt. To make an admission or a declaration, a confession, it must amount to a clear acknowledgement of guilt. 17. The following observations of HOLLOWAY .J in an American case (State Vs. Guie, 56 Mont 485, cited wig Section 821), explains this proposition as under: ''The distinction betw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....warrant a court's opinion based on pure surmise. A prima facie opinion based on evidence and circumstances may be adopted as the standard laid down. To put it in other words, on the evidence and the circumstances in a particular case it may appear to the court that there was a threat, inducement or promise, though the said fact is not strictly proved. It is not possible or advisable to lay down an inflexible standard for guidance of courts, for in the ultimate analysis it is the court which is called upon to exclude a confession by holding in the circumstances of a particular case that the confession was not made voluntarily. 21. In State of Karnataka Vs. A.B.Nagaraj and another (AIR 2003 Supreme Court 666), the Apex Court has observed that: "it is unsafe to base the conviction on a retracted confession unless it is corroborated by trustworthy evidence. There is no definite law that a retracted confession cannot be the basis of the conviction but it has been laid down as a rule of practice and prudence not to rely on retracted confession unless corroborated''. 22. Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, in support of his argument has....