2018 (2) TMI 579

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Rawal guilty of the said abetment and levied a penalty of Rs. 7,50,000/- on him. The present appeal is against the said order. The case was finally heard on 22.01.2018. The learned counsel for the appellants stated the following :- (i) That Sh. K.B. Rawal was working as an accountant in the office of the main accused, Sh. P.G. Rawal. That it was P.G Rawal who directed him to open accounts and the appellant worked under his direction only. That the appellant was a very junior person and had no role to play in any of the decisions of the Company. As per the Law of Torts, it is the master who is liable. (ii) That the Enforcement Directorate had not only initiated adjudication proceedings against him but the appellant was also booked under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....people who had actually committed the offence have been absolved, but the appellant who is a poor man has been suffering without any reason. Because of the above and that there is no proof against the appellant, the order in original requires to be set aside. In response, Sh. Prashant Pandey , learned counsel for the respondent stated the following:- (i) As per para 25 (vii), ( page 18 of the order in original), the appellant was the proprietor of M/s Vikram Sales Corporation and M/s Valifan Sales Agency and was also the proprietor of M/s Texman Traders, Ahmedabad. (ii) That Section 56 of the FERA makes it very clear that prosecution proceedings are independent of adjudication proceedings and exoneration from prosecution will not have a....