TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (11) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....e., the appellants in Appeal Nos. 619/05 and 620/05 respectively besides ordering confiscation of Rs. 20,36,000 seized from Prem Singh and Rs. 81,750 seized from residence and person of the Rajendra Singh, i.e., the appellant in Appeal No. 618/05 and the appellant in Appeal No. 620/05 respectively to the credit of Central Government for the reason of purchasing and selling of foreign exchange without any previous general or special permission of RBI in contravention of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) of FER Act, 1973. A show-cause notice dated 3-3-1992 was issued to the appellants asking them to explain why adjudication proceedings should not be held against them. While issuing the said SCN reliance was made on the following: (1) Pan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rding to him the said statement was recorded under duress and was retracted at the first available opportunity. Secondly, it is argued that in absence of incriminating documents to corroborate the retracted statement and loose sheets recovered from the residence of Prem Singh. The confessional statement is inadmissible in evidence. Thirdly, it is contended that impugned order is vitiated for violation of principle of natural justice as despite request neither English version of the seized documents in Pushto language was given nor cross examination of the officials concerned with seizure was allowed. Fourthly, it is contended that the statement of Prem Singh only states some entries regarding purchase and sale of foreign exchange during the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The contentions of Shri A.C. Singh, DLA regarding admissibility of confessional statement is correct. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (HQ), Central Excise Collectorate [1997] 3 SCC 721 that retracted confessional statement may be sufficient ground for the conviction of the offender provided there is sufficient corroboration to prove the charge against the offender: "It would thus be seen that there is no prohibition under the Evidence Act to rely upon the retracted confession to prove the prosecution case or to make the same basis for conviction of the accused. Practice and prudence require that the court could examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether there ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tatement appears to have been obtained by any inducement, threat, coercion or by any improper means that statement must be rejected brevi manu. At the same time, it is to be noted that merely because a statement is retracted, cannot be recorded as involuntary or unlawfully obtained. It is only for the maker of the statement who alleges inducement, threat, promise, etc. to establish that such improper means has been adopted. However, even if the maker of the statement fails to establish his allegations of inducement, threat etc. against the officer who recorded the statement, the authority while acting on the inculpatory statement of the maker is not completely relieved of his obligations in at least subjectively applying its mind to the sub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny proof of torture or duress. The argument that these statements are inadmissible in evidence therefore cannot be acceptable in view of discussions made above. 9. The argument that the failure to supply of English version of Pushto documents in violative of the principle of natural justice is misconceived in the background of this case where the author of the document is none other than the appellant Prem Singh himself. 10. The argument that loose sheets recovered from residence of Prem Singh cannot be treated as account book and not admissible in evidence as per the Indian Evidence Act is fallicious. Here the learned counsel misapplied the provisions of section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to the FERA proceedings. It is true that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is 'fair' and proper under the circumstances; (ii) the expression 'reasonable' is not susceptible of a clear and precise definition. A thing which is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. Reasonable does not mean the best, it means most suitable in given set of circumstances; (iii) there is no point on which a greater amount of decision is to be found in courts of law and equity than as to what is reasonable : It is impossible a priori to state what is reasonable as such in all cases. You must have the particular facts of each case established before you can ascertain what is meant by reasonable under the circumstances--L. Romilly M.R. Labouchere v. Dawsor [1872], LR 13 Eq. CA. 325. In Khem Chand v. ....