2009 (10) TMI 1001

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntravention of the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) of the FER Act, 1973 for having made payment of Rs.  2,35,365/- to various persons in India by order or on behalf of one Bishnu Babu of Bangladesh, a person resident outside India without the permission of the RBI. The appellant is neither present nor represented. A report has been submitted by Shri Jagat Singh, Advocate for the respondent stating that notice has been served on the appellant through affixation under Rule 14(c) of Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules, 2000. The report is taken on record. This is a very old appeal of the year, 1995 where having no option this appeal is taken up for final disposal on the basis of material available on record. 3. I have heard Shri Ja....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de India for better appreciation of legal position which is provided as under : Section 9. Restrictions on payments. - (1) Save as may be provided in, and in accordance with any general or special exemption from the provisions of this sub section which may be granted conditionally or unconditionally by the Reserve Bank, no person in, or resident in, India shall - (d) make any payment to, or for the credit of any person by order or on behalf of any person resident outside India; 6. The appellant admitted that the aforesaid payments were made by him on instructions from abroad. However, he retracted the confessional statement subsequently but there is bald statement not supported by documentary evidence. The retraction of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... at least subjectively applying its mind to the subsequent retraction to hold that the inculpatory statement was not extorted. It thus boils down that the authority or any court intending to act upon the inculpatory statement as voluntary one only. On this principle of law, this Court in several decisions has ruled that even in passing a detention order on the basis of an inculpatory statement of a detenu who has violated the provisions of the FERA or the retraction and record its opinion before accepting the inculpatory statement lest the order will be vitiated. 7. In K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate. Cochin, [1997] 3 SCC 721 it has been observed by the Supreme Court that the retracted confessional s....