TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (9) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., i.e., 22-7-1999, the appellant's counsel Shri Ramesh Reddy filed written submission assailing the order on several grounds. The department's case is that the appellant was apprehended on 22-5-1990 by circle Inspector of Police at Nizambad bus stand and the search of the gunni bag carried by the appellant resulted in the seizure of Indian currency of Rs. 13,29,000. The circle Inspector prepared a Panchnama called acceptance-cum-seizure Panchnama which contained statement allegedly made by the appellant before the circle Inspector. In this statement, the appellant is stated to have made certain admissions in respect of the seized amount of Rs. 13,29,000 as also about compensatory payments having been made by him in the past. It is not disputed that this statement is self-incriminatory. On 23-5-1990, the case was transferred to the Chief Enforcement Officer, Hyderabad under the orders of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. On the same day, the appellant's residence at Nizamabad was searched by the officers of Enforcement Directorate which resulted in the seizure of two chits. In his statement dated 24-5-1990, while explaining one of the chits seized from his residence the appellant stated th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tive of the venue of search and seizure. It was also suggested to Shri Reddy that the appellant on the other hand had the advantage in claiming search and seizure from his residence because thereby he could lend some prima facie credibility to his story of the seized amount being the proceeds of collection of money from various persons who wanted to have visa. It was further suggested that since there is no evidence that the appellant had complained about the alteration of venue of seizure when he was produced before the Magistrate or of evidence of any other complaint to any authority about the same, why should a view be taken that the story put forth by the appellant is only an afterthought, particularly in view of the fact that he was to gain thereby while the police could gain no advantage by making a false Panchnama and that the appellant's story is not supported by any evidence. Shri Reddy had no cogent explanation. His reply that the police might have acted at the instance of the Enforcement officers has no merits as the Enforcement officers came into the picture after the police had already acted in the matter. 5. In his written submissions, the appellant has taken the sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to copies of passports cannot be the evidence of collection of money towards expenses for securing visas. Nothing has been mentioned in the list as to which passport holder wanted to go to which country so that the visa would be arranged for that country. The applicant has not produced the records so as to show that the list reflects the factual position. Obviously, the list is a made up one. There is no visa application forms signed by the applicants. In the circumstances, the list and the photo copies as filed by Shri Reddy cannot be of any assistance to him to support the case of the appellant. It is also pertinent to note in this regard that there is no evidence that any visa the applicant has come forward to claim the amount from the appellant or from the department. On being asked in this regard Shri Reddy submitted that the appellant has paid them by arranging the funds. However, there is no evidence of any of the applicant having paid back the money and to whom had it been paid. In the circumstances, I have no hesitation to hold that the entire story built up by the appellant is only weak attempt to avoid the charge. 7. As regards the argument as to the legality of police ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arned Adjudicating Officer. In my opinion, in the circumstances, as stated above, a mere retraction can be of no avail unless the true position if it is otherwise than as in the retracted statement is brought forth to show that the earlier statement could not have been true. 11. The appellant has also raised a point about non-existence of Ramesh of Bombay from whom the appellant is alleged to have collected the amount. In the course of the hearing, it was suggested to Shri Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant that even if Ramesh's role has not been proved it would not alter the position that the appellant had received the amount at the instructions of a non-resident as alleged even if it was not through Ramesh of Bombay. 12. The appellant has made a point of non-application of mind on the part of the adjudicating authority on the ground that having held that there was no evidence of attempt to make payment of Rs. 13,29,000 and, therefore, the charge of violation of section 9(1)(d), read with section 64(2) cannot survive. However, he held the appellant guilty of section 9(1)(d) for the amount of Rs. 24,30,000 and Rs. 11 lakhs, respectively, whereas the total amount comes t....