2023 (7) TMI 829

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat on 22.01.1990, the residential premises of Balwinder Singh Sandhu S/o Kundan Singh were searched by the officials of the Enforcement and the said raid resulted into seizure of 88 US $, 2315 UAE Dirhams, Indian currency of Rs. 1,10,880/- and various other documents, in which there were some lists giving the details of certain parties. Certain amounts in code were mentioned against those persons, which indicated the payments to them. During this course of search at the residential premises, Waryam Singh, respondent/accused was found present and during the search, one more person, who disclosed his name as Shamsher Singh S/o Swaran Singh, also entered the said premises and his personal search was conducted. During his search, certain documents depicting the names and addresses of certain people, were also found. Balwinder Singh Sandhu was questioned and he stated that he was running a shop at Dubai and had come to India on 07.01.1990 and thereafter the officers of Enforcement Directorate (ED) had raided his house and seized 88 US $ and 2315 UAE Dirhams, which had brought with himself from Dubai on 07.01.1990 and he was fully aware of the contents of the documents, which were seize....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Delhi. Till 22.01.1990, he had gone to Delhi nine times and total money amounting to Rs. 20 lacs was collected from there. Balwinder Singh Sandhu, his brother-in-law used to send him the details of distribution of money from Dubai and he had distributed Rs. 20 lacs in India on the instructions of Balwinder Singh Sandhu. The Enforcement Directorate also recorded his statement to the effect that during the search of the house of his brother-in-law Balwinder Singh Sandhu, he was found there and his brother-in-law used to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- per month to him for the said job. Even the bunch of chits seized were the receipts, which were obtained from the persons, to whom he had distributed money in India. Further, the statements of Shamsher Singh and several other persons were also recorded. The statement of the respondent was also recorded on 24.01.1990, in which he stated that he knew two women, namely, Surinder Kaur and Joginder Kaur and they were the same persons, to whom the payments of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively, were made under the instructions of Balwinder Singh Sandhu. He used to send money through bank drafts and the payments were made as per the instructi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... punishable under Section 56 of the Act. Since the complainant was the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate and the complaint was filed by him in his official capacity, the summoning order was passed by the learned trial Court. After his appearance, in pre-charge evidence, A.K. Kaushal, Enforcement Officer was examined as CW-1, whereas Ishwar Singh, Superintendent, Central Excise, Chandigarh was examined as CW-2. After consideration of pre-charge evidence, learned trial Court found that a prima facie case under Section 56 of the Act was made out against the accused and was charge-sheeted, to which he had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After the framing of charges, again the witnesses were produced for cross examination further. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereby all the incriminating evidence was put to him. In defence, he placed on record a copy of the order dated 11.12.1993 of Foreign Exchange Regulatory Board as Ex.D1, release order of retention Ex.D2 and the judgment of the Appellate Tribunal dated 23.12.2003 as Ex.D-3. I have heard learned counsel for the parti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xamined and non-examination of the complainant, who had instituted the complaint in his official capacity, had caused serious prejudice to the case of the prosecution and he was deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining the most material witness of the prosecution, who had launched the prosecution against him. Even otherwise, I have carefully perused the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court and the learned Trial Court has recorded valid and substantial reasons for acquitting the present respondent. In the instant case, the raid was conducted by Ishwar Singh, who had appeared as CW-2 in the instant case. He admitted that at the time of raid, no independent witness was joined. Apart from that a panchnama Ex.C1 was prepared and as per the testimony of CW2 Ishwar Singh, panchnama Ex.C1 was signed by the respondent/accused. However, during his deposition, the panchnama was put to him and he admitted that it did not bear the signatures of the respondent. Apart from that, A.K Kaushal was examined as CW1 and he also admitted that two independent witnesses were associated, but had not been examined. He further admitted that panchnama did not bear the signatures of the accuse....