2026 (2) TMI 1214

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Authority (AA) maintained the penalty of Rs. 10,05,000/- on the Appellant Shri K. V. Abdul Khader, for the contravention of Section 3(c) of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA) to the extent of Rs. 56,25,000/- and upheld the confiscation of the seized amount of Rs. 56,25,000/- as passed by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin in the Order dated 16.07.2015. 2. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant challenged the Impugned Order on the grounds that the statement dated 19.03.2012 of the Appellant was erroneously regarded as voluntary and therefore admitted as evidence. When in fact, the statement was obtained illegally by detaining the Appellant and harassing him. The Ld. AA erred in rejecting the retraction dated 09....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AE, got Rs.56,25,000/- collected through Shri Abhilash for further distribution as per instructions. Ld. Counsel alleged that the Appellant had thus contravened the provisions of Section 3(c) of FEMA. Ld. Counsel submitted that the retraction dated 09.05.2012 of the Appellant and the retraction dated 07.06.2012 of Shri T S Abhilash of their statements dated 19.03.2012 were rejected on 22.06.2012 by the Joint Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Cochin after necessary enquires. Ld. Counsel also stated that Shri Shihab had not retracted from his statement. Ld. Counsel argued that the recovery of Rs. 56,30,000/- establishes the contravention indulged in by the Appellant. He therefore, pleaded to dismiss the Appeal. 4. We have considered th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Supra) following has been observed in paragraph 23: "23. It is trite law that evidence brought on record by way of confession which stood retracted must be substantially corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence, which would lend adequate assurance to the court that it may seek to rely thereupon. We are not oblivious of some decisions of this Court wherein reliance has been placed for supporting such contention but we must also notice that in some of the cases retracted confession has been used as a piece of corroborative evidence and not as the evidence on the basis whereof alone a judgment of conviction and sentence has been recorded." In K.T.M.S Mohamed Vs. Union of India [(1992) 3 SCC 178] the Hon'ble Supreme Cou....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion and reject the same in writing. It is 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 Customs Act, etc. the detaining authority should consider the subsequent retraction and record its opinion before accepting the inculpatory statement lest the order will be vitiated." We also note that the statement made by the Appellant before the Officer of the Respondent Directorate was in his own handwriting. Moreover, the retraction was duly considered and rejected by the Competent Authority of the Respondent Directorate. We also find that the Adjudicating Authority and the Appel....