CRL.A./91/2008 of BRIJ TRADING CO. Vs ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHICRL. A. No. 91 of 2008

Reserved on: January 24, 2014Decision on: January 31, 2014

BRIJ TRADING CO.

..... Appellant

Through:Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Anish Dingra,Mr. Lohitaksh Shukla,Mr. K.R. Dogra and Ms. VasundharaChauhan, Advocates.

versusENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE..... RespondentThrough:Mr. Subhash Bansal andMr. Shashwat, Advocatesfor Enforcement Directorate.Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI.WITHCRL. A. No. 92 of 2008RAMESH KUMAR CHOPRA…..AppellantThrough:Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Anish Dingra,Mr. Lohitaksh Shukla,Mr. K.R. Dogra and Ms. VasundharaChauhan, Advocates.

versus

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

……AppellantThrough:Mr. Subhash Bansal andMr. Shashwat, Advocatesfor Enforcement Directorate.Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI.

WITH

CRL. A. No. 93 of 2008

LEKH RAJ CHOPRA

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

…..Appellant

Through:Mr. Pavan Narang, Mr. Anish Dingra,Mr. Lohitaksh Shukla,Mr. K.R. Dogra and Ms. VasundharaChauhan, Advocates.

versus

ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE……AppellantThrough:Mr. Subhash Bansal andMr. Shashwat, Advocatesfor Enforcement Directorate.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUDGMENT31.01.2014

1. These three appeals are directed against the common order dated 27[th]December 2007 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange(‘AT’) dismissing Appeal Nos. 691, 692 and 693 of 2004 hereby affirmingthe adjudication order (‘AO’) dated 18[th]May 2004 passed by the SpecialDirector (‘SD’), Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’).

2.Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 2008 is by Brij Trading Co. (‘BTC’),Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2008 is by Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra andCriminal Appeal No. 93 of 2008 is by Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra.

3. The background to these appeals is that prior to 1[st]December 1978,BTC was partnership firm, of which Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra and Mr.Ganesh Das Chopra were partners. With effect from 1[st]December 1978,Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra was inducted as partner. In April 1979, Mr.Lekh Raj Chopra ceased to be partner and thereafter, Mr. Ganesh DasChopra and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra continued as partners of BTC.

4. On 28[th]July 1980, simultaneous searches were conducted by the officers

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

of the ED at various premises, including those of Mr. Mukund Lal Khanna,from where briefcase bearing an Air India identification slip with thename ‘Pritam Lal of Kabul’ was recovered. The briefcase containeddocuments and accounts, and, on being questioned, Mr. Mukund LalKhanna affirmed that the briefcase belonged to Mr. Pritam Lal of Kabul.Incidentally, Mr. Pritam Lal is also knownas Mr. Brij Lal, who hadalso filed separate Appeal which wasdismissed by the AT by thesame common order, dismissing the Appeals of the Appellants herein.Mr. Brij Lal has filed separate Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2008, whichis not listed along with the present Appeals.

5. Further searches were conducted on 27[th]/28[th]August 1980 by the ED atthe premises of BTC as well as the residential premises of Mr. Brij Lal andMr. Lekh Raj Chopra. Among the documents recovered were three lettersin Urdu and Persian written by Mr. Deep Raj and addressed to Mr. Rameshand Mr. Manjesh, c/o BTC. According to the ED, the said letters containedcoded instructions for receiving payments in India and making of hawalapayments therefrom against receipt of corresponding payments in Kabul.The briefcase also contained general hawala slips addressed to one BablaSahe/Bedi Saheb, stated to be the code names of Mr. Niranjan Singh,against whom also the proceedings were initiated by the ED, whohappended to be an employee of BTC.

6. The statements of Mr. Nirajan Singh under Section 40 of the ForeignExchange Regulation Act, 1973 (‘FERA’) were recorded on variousoccasions. He, inter alia, confirmed that the slips in the briefcase werehawala receipts slips, against which, on receipt of instructions from Kabuland Peshawar, hawala payments were made in India. These instructionswere received at the shop of BTC at Delhi. After making of the payments,Mr. Niranjan Singh used to handover the Rukka to Mr. Brij Lal Chopra.

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 3 of 15

7. The statement of Mr. Ganesh Das Chopra under Section 40 of FERAwas also recorded by the ED. Mr. Ganesh Das Chopra also stated that theaccounts seized in the briefcase werewrittenmainly by Mr. NiranjanSingh. The statement of Mr. Shiv Saran Kakkar was recorded on 15[th]February 1980. He, too, admitted to having received hawala payments asshown in the documents found in the briefcase. On 23[rd]December 1980,Mr. Brij Lal submitted an affidavit before the First Secretary, IndianEmbassy, Kabul asserting that the documents in the briefcase recoveredfrom the residence of Mr. Mukund Lal Khanna belonged to him and thathe had left the said briefcase with Mr. Mukund Lal Khanna for safecustody before he left for Kabul.

8. On 22[nd]August 1981, memorandum was issued by the ED to BTCas well as Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopra and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra,addressed as partners ofBTC,Mr. Brij Lal, Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra,Mr. Mukund Lal Khanna and Mr. Niranjan Singh, requiring the firm, BTC,to show cause as to why the adjudication proceedings should not be heldagainst them under Section 51 of the FERA for contravention of Section9(1) (b) (d) and (f) read with Section 64(2) and 68(1) of the FERA. Thesaid Memorandum referred to the documents seized from the briefcase ofMr. Brij Lal of Kabul, the documents seized from the premises of BTC andthose seized from the premises of Mr. Niranjan Singh as well as Mr. ShivCharan Kakkar. Further, the Memorandum referred to the books ofaccounts of BTC; the transcripts of the accounts of BTC maintained withthe Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk; the statements dated 14[th], 15[th], 19[th]September 1980 and 14[th]October 1980 of Mr. Niranjan Singh; thestatements dated 27[th]August, 21[st], 25[th], 26[th]and 30[th]September 1980 ofMr. Mukund Lal Khanna; the statements dated 28[th]August, 3[rd], 21[st], 25[th]September 1980 and 1[st], 31[st]October 1980 of Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopraand the statement dated 16[th]April 1981 of Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra.

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 4 of 15

9. An order dated 10[th]April 1986 was passed by the SD holding BTC, Mr.Lekh Raj Chopra and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra guilty of havingcontravened the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) of the FERA with regard tothe payments totaling Rs. 10,90,91,640; guilty of the contravention ofSection 9(1)(b) with regard to the receipt of payments totaling Rs.5,44,96,315 and of contravention of Section 9(1)(f) with regard to thepayments received to the extent of Rs. 5,81,45,286, as detailed inannexures 1, 2 and 3 respectively to the show cause notice. The SD alsoheld that Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra would be liable under Section 68(1) of theFERA for the transactions of BTC between the period 3[rd]January 1978 to31[st]March 1979 and Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopra and Mr. Ramesh KumarChopra in terms of Section 68(1) FERA. It was held that Mr. RameshKumar Chopra was guilty of the contravention of Section 9(1)(b)(d) and (f)read with Section 68(1) of the FERA for the violation by BTC of theprovisions contained in Section 9(1)(b)(d) and (f) of the FERA. As regardsthe penalty, the SD levied penalty of Rs. 45,00,000 on BTC, Rs.45,00,000 each on Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopra, Mr. Brij Lal Chopra and Mr.Lekh Raj Chopra, penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 on Mr. Mukund Lal Khanna,Rs. 1,00,000 on Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra and Rs. 20,000 on Mr.Niranjan Singh.

10. Aggrieved by the aforementioned order of the SD, the Appellantsapproached the AT, which, by an order dated 19[th]May 2003, set aside thesaid order of the SD and remanded the Appeals to the SD to inquire into“whether the entries relating to illicit transactions were made during thecourse of the business of the firm and with the concurrence and knowledgeof the firm.”

11. Thereafter, the SD again dealt with the Appeals of the Appellants andpassed an order on 18[th]May 2004, holding the Appellants to be guilty of

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 5 of 15

violating the provisions of the FERA. The SD imposed penalty of Rs.2,00,00,000 on BTC for contravention of Sections 9(1)(b)(d) and (f) ofFERA. Likewise, penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 each was imposed on Mr.Ganesh Dass Chopra, Mr. Ramesh Kumar ChopraandMr. Lekh RajChopra. personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000 was also imposed on Mr.Pritam Lal @ Mr. Brij Lal.

12. Aggrieved by the second order of the SD, the Appellants againapproached the AT, which dismissed the said Appeals on 27[th]December2007. By the impugned order, the AT held that the order of the SD wascorrectly passed and that the penalty imposed was also commensurate withthe violations found to have been committed by the Appellants. It was heldthat the penalties were “sufficient to create deterrence from violation ofregulatorystatute”andwere,therefore,notharshandexcessive,particularly “when we look to the decrease in the value of money byinflation in the society.”13. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Pawan Narang, learnedcounsel for the Appellants and of Mr. Subhash Bansal, learned counsel forthe ED.

14. It is first submitted by Mr. Narang, learned counsel for the Appellantsthat the SD had not complied with the specific directions issued in theorder dated 19[th]May 2003 passed by the ED. In other words, it issubmitted that the SD, ED failed to determine whether the alleged illegalacts of BTC were, in fact, performed in the course of its business. It issubmitted that the infractions of the law committed by the partners canallegedly result in penalty being imposed on the firm “only if suchinfractions are committed on behalf of the firm.” In the instant case, thealleged illegal acts could not be said to have been committed on behalf of

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008Page 6 of 15

the firm, and even if there was violation by the individual partners ofSections 9(1)(b)(d) and (f), such violation remained as one committed bythe firm itself. It is submitted that in the entire record of the case, there isnothing to indicate that the infractions were committed by BTC. It issubmitted that the finding of the SD which has been affirmed by the AT iscontrary to Section 68 of FERA, which applies to companies. It issubmitted that, unless it is shown that the individual partners acted illegallyon behalf of the firm or in furtherance of its objects, firm should not bepenalized under FERA for the acts of its partners. Section 26 of the IndianPartnership Act, 1932 (‘Partnership Act’) does not apply since it wasnobody’s case that in the ordinary course of business, BTC was indulgingin hawala transactions. Further, under Section 28 of the Partnership Act, afirm cannot be held liable for the acts of Mr. Niranjan Singh, who was onlyan employee of the firm and not its partner.

15. Secondly, it is submitted that Mr. Niranjan Singh was an allegedaccomplice and his evidence could be accepted only if it was reliable andcorroborated in material particulars. Reliance is placed on the decisions inSarwan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 and Bhiva DoulaPatil v. State of Maharashtra 1962 SCR 830. Additionally, Mr. Narangalso placed reliance on the decision in Vinod Solanki v. Union of India(2008) 16 SCC 537, which reiterated that the evidence brought on recordpointing at confession which stood retracted, must be substantiallycorroborated by either independent or cogent evidence. Further, the burdenwas on the prosecution to show that the confession made by Mr. NiranjanSingh was voluntary in nature.

16. Relying on the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C.Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, Mr. Narang submitted that the entries in therukkas could alone not be sufficient to charge person with the liability

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 7 of 15

and, at best, they could only be corroborative evidence. In terms of Section34 of the Evidence Act, 1872, it has to be shown that the documents seizedfrom the firm reflected the entries that were made in the course of businessof the firm. The statement made by party to the proceedings as anadmission can be proved against him, but not against the others who arebeing jointly tried, unless it amounted to confession. Reliance is alsoplaced on the decision in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC178. Mr. Narang also referred to the statements made by Mr. NiranjanSingh and Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopra, which did not show that BTC wasitself involved in any illegality. Lastly, Mr. Narang submitted that with theED not having appealed against the order dated 10[th]April 1986 of the SD,it was not open to the SD, on remand, to enhance the penalty awarded tothe Appellants.17. In reply to the above submissions, Mr. Subhash Bansal, learnedcounsel for the ED first submitted that once the original order dated 10[th]April 1986 was set aside by the AT by the order dated 19[th]May 2003, noreliance could be placed on it for any purpose whatsoever. There wasnothing, therefore, that prevented the SD, ED from examining the matterafresh and imposing higher penalty, if so warranted in law. Referring toSection 50 of the FERA, he pointed out that penalty could be as high asfive times the amount involved in the contravention and, therefore, thepenalty imposed by the SD by the order dated 18[th]May 2004 was justified.

18. Mr. Bansal referred to the decision in Telstar Travels Private Limitedv. Enforcement Directorate (2013) 9 SCC 549 and submitted that even aretracted confession could be relied upon as long as it was corroborated.

19. The Court has considered the above submissions. The specific case ofthe ED, as set out in the Memorandum dated 22[nd]August 1981, was that

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

the documents seized from the briefcase of Mr. Pritam Lal @ Mr. Brij Lalas well as the documents seized from BTC, as explained by Mr. NiranjanSingh and Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopra in their respective statements, werethat compensatory payments were being made to the beneficiary parties inIndia by BTC, the details of which were reflected in the “day to dayaccounts written in various account books/sheets date wise, written andmaintained at Brij Trading Co., Delhi which fact is further corroboratedwith the corresponding entries appearing in the account books/sheetsmaintained in Kabul at the shop of Brij Lal & Lekh Raj from where theseinstructions were on the respective dates when these transactions actuallytook place.”

20. One of the criticisms of the learned counsel for the Appellants is thatdespite the order dated 19[th]May 2003 of the learned AT specificallyrequiring the SD, on remand, to examine whether the entries relating to theillicit transactions were made in due course of business of BTC, and withthe concurrence and knowledge of its partners, the SD has, in thesubsequent order dated 18[th]May 2004, merely repeated the earlier order.

21. Having carefully perused both the orders of the SD, this Court isunable to agree with the above submission. It is correct that by its orderdated 19[th]May 2003, the AT specifically required the SD to consider thefollowing questions:

(i) Whether the breaches of the provisions of the statue werecommitted by Mr. Niranjan Singh as an employee of BTC with theknowledge and concurrence of BTC?

(ii) Whether the entries relating to illicit transactions were made indue course of the business of BTC and with the concurrence andknowledge of BTC?

22. The tenor of the order dated 19[th]May 2003 of the learned AT is that if

the violations of the law were committed by individuals, without theknowledge of the firm or its partners, then the firm could not be held liablefor such violations. There was, in terms of the aforementioned order of theAT, no question of any fresh material being produced before the SD. Inother words, the SD was required to pass fresh reasoned order on thebasis of the existing material.

23. perusal of the order dated 18[th]May 2004 of the SD shows that theprecise role of BTC in the transactions has been exhaustively discussed.The SD has analysed the writings on the rukka slips and has decodified thewritings on the basis of the statements made by Mr. Niranjan Singh, Mr.Ganesh Dass Chopra and certain others. In para 17 of the said order, theSD has listed out the “connectivity/link” of the transactions, as recorded inthe documents seized from the briefcase of Mr. Brij Lal. There are as manyas thirty four such specific instances listed. This was far more detailedand exhaustive analysis than that undertaken on the very same material inthe earlier order dated 10[th]April 1986 of the SD. In separate sectiontitled ‘Discussion and Findings”, the SD has, in the order dated 18[th]May2004, set out the reasons for holding that the BTC as well as its partnerswere responsible for the violation of Sections 9(1)(b)(d)(f) FERA.

24. It was sought to be urged by Mr. Narang that the statements made byMr. Niranjan Singh had clarified that although some of the letters wereaddressed to Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra, he was at the relevant time onlya school going student of barely 18 years of age and that the letters wereactually meant for “Mamaji” which meant Mr. Brij Lal. However, the factremains that Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra was already partner in the firmsince 1[st]December 1978. He was authorized to operate bank accounts ofthe firm and was one of the signatories of the cheques issued by the firm. Itwas not as if he was sleeping partner with no responsibility at all.

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 10 of 15

25. In the order dated 18[th]May 2004, the SD has put forth the followinganalysis of the evidence in support of his conclusion that the firm and itspartners were actively involved in the hawala transactions:

“Both Shri Ramesh Kumar Chopra and his father Shri Lekh RajChopra were partners of the firm. Shri Ramesh Chopra was stayingin India whereas Lekh Raj Chopra was frequenting between Delhiand Kabul.

Brij Trading Co. was operating from Delhi with partners as GaneshDas Chopra, Lekh Raj Chopra and Ramesh Kumar Chopra and theywere organizing hawala payments in India on the basis ofinstructions received from abroad and particularly from Kabul andthe office at Kabul was also being run by Shri Lekh Raj Chopra andBrij Lal as has been stated by Shri Ramesh Kumar Chopra in hisstatement dated 16.4.81. Whatever hawala transactions was beingconducted in India was on the basis of the instructions beingreceived from abroad and he link between the abroad and DelhiOffice is through Lekh Raj Chopra and Brij Lal at Kabul and thethree partners namely S/Shri Ramesh Chopra, Ganesh Chopra andLekh Raj Chopra in India. Such an elaborate hawala network canonly run on the basis of networks/contacts abroad which was amongthe partners. It has never been the case of the department nor at anypoint of time has it been brought through evidence that any of theemployees were having hawala transaction independently throughtheir separate contact abroad. Therefore, on the facts of the case it isvery clear that the said hawala network between Indian andKabul/Peshawar etc. was due to the contact of the partners and theemployees were only working as per the directions received fromthese partners from time to time. The documents found in thebriefcase also contained several letters written by Shri Lek Raj fromKabul addressed to Shri Brij Lal (Brij Lal was available in Indiamost of the time) containing instructions for making and receivingpayments in India. Part of the accounts found in the briefcase waswritten by Shri Lekh Raj as stated by Niranjan Singh. Therefore,without the Kabul connection which was provided by Shri Lekh Raj,Brij Tading Co. could not have transacted hawala business and it isalso worthwhile mentioning that Shri Ramesh Kumar Chopra wasonly the son of Shri Kekh Raj and both were active in making thehawala transactions in India (Lekh Raj was also most of the timeavailable in India).”

26. Thereafter, the SD has analysed the accounts found in the briefcase

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 11 of 15

along with the other documents recovered, including the books of accountsand bank accounts statements of BTC and set out in tabulated form“Corroboratory evidence – linking various transactions as recorded in thedocuments seized on 27.08.1980 from the samsonite briefcase found at theresidence of Sh. Mukand Lal Khanna with corresponding entries asrecorded in the regular books of accounts of Brij Trading Co. as also thosein the account of the company with Canara Bank, Chandni Chowk, Delhi”The chart contains three columns titled “Documents of Samsonite BriefCase”, “Books of Accounts of M/s Brij Trading Co.” and “Account ofBTC with Canara Bank.” The specific descriptions of the transactions andthe corresponding amounts are set out under the columns.

27. Mr. Narang’s comment on the above tabulated chart was that it doesnot necessarily indicate that the entries were coded. He submitted thatthere was no way of knowing whether the so-called decodification actuallyreflected the correct position, particularly since BTC prepared and filedaudited accounts on regular basis.

28. The above submission overlooks the fact that the order of the SD refersto the material recovered from the briefcase as well as the statements madeduring the course of the investigation in great detail. It is not possible forthe SD to have arbitrarily and randomly prepared the above detailedtabulation. The statements of Mr. Niranjan Singh were helpful in thedecodification exercise, as has been noted in the order of the SD.

29. The other tabulated statement enclosed contains detailed analysis ofthe entries of miscellaneous/regular nature in respect of the expensesincurred for various noticees. In the above context, it was submitted by Mr.Narang that of the twenty two noticees whose names figured in thereceipts, and to whom hawala payments were allegedly made, only six

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 12 of 15

were examined. The six persons examined did not support the case of theED. In other words, six persons denied receiving any hawala payments.Therefore, according to him, the case of the ED was not proved. He furthersubmitted that nothing prevented the ED from examining the remainingwitnesses whose names figured in the rukkas.

30. The Court has examined the statements of Mr. Niranjan Singh and Mr.Ganesh Dass Chopra. The Court finds that they give definite particularswhich support the case of the ED as regards the hawala undertaken byBTC as well as its partners. For instance, Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopraadmitted to receiving rukkas and making payments and to receiving lettersaddressed to Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra, Mr. Brij Lal and Mr. Ganesh DassChopra. The statements of Mr. Niranjan Singh and the documentsrecovered from him completed the transactions involved in the case. Hewas examined and cross-examined by learned counsel for the noticees,including the Appellants herein. The SD has analysed the furtherdocuments tendered by Mr.Niranjan Singh on 11[th]December 1982 duringthe course of adjudication proceedings and those seized from the residenceof Mr. Ganesh Dass Chopra on 8[th]February 1994. The probative value ofthese and the other evidence on record has been exhaustively discussed inthe order dated 18[th]May 2004 of the SD. The fact that BTC itself wasinvolved in the transactions and that all the four transactions took placewith the knowledge and participation of its partners and in particular Mr.Lekh Raj Chopra and Mr. Ramesh Kumar Chopra, has been fully broughtout in the above documents which have been thoroughly analysed in theorder of the SD.

31. On the question of retracted confession, the position that emerges froman analysis of the evidence in the present case is that there is adequatecorroboration of the statements of Mr. Niranjan Singh to be found in the

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

Page 13 of 15

documentary evidence gathered in the present case. It cannot be said thatthe guilt in the present case is based only on the statement of Mr. NiranjanSingh without any corroboration from the documentary evidence onrecord. As rightly pointed out by the learned AT in the impugned orderdated 27[th]December 2007, there is nothing brought on record by theAppellants to show that the statements of Mr. Niranjan Singh were madeunder threat or coercion. The Court concurs with the view expressed by thelearned AT in the present case that the statements made by Mr. NiranjanSingh were both voluntary and corroborated in material particulars and,therefore, could safely be relied upon for the purposes of determining theguilt of the Appellants.

32. With the evidence on record clearly pointing to the involvement ofBTC and with the involvement of its partners also being demonstrated,there was no error committed by SD in proceeding to hold BTC and itspartners guilty of contravention of Sections 9(1)(b)(d) and (f) of the FERA.There was no misapplication of Section 68 of the FERA which, inprinciple and by analogy, could be extended to contravention by thepartnership firms. This is in consonance with Section 25 of the PartnershipAct. Once it was established that the illegal acts were committed by thefirm itself, then there was no difficulty in applying Section 68 of theFERA.

33. The decision in Telstar Travels Private Limited v. EnforcementDirectorate has dealt with the decision in K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union ofIndia and distinguished the decision in Vinod Solanki v. Union of India toexplain the legal position that even retracted confessional statementcould be relied upon as long as it was corroborated.

34. Lastly, on the issue of penalty, Mr. Bansal rightly submitted that once

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008

the original order dated 10[th]April 1986 of the SD was set aside by the ATby its order dated 19[th]May 2003, there had to be fresh adjudication onthe basis of the show cause notice and, therefore, the question of penaltyhad to be determined afresh.

35. The order of the SD may not have explained the precise basis forarriving at the penalty amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000 imposed on BTC and Rs.1,00,00,000 each on Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra and Mr. Ramesh KumarChopra. However, Section 50 of the FERA does envisage penalty fivetimes the amount involved in the violation. In the present case, that amountis in excess of Rs. 10,00,00,000 and, therefore, on the basis of theparameters set out in Section 50, it cannot be said that the penalty imposedon BTC and the two Appellants, i.e., Mr. Lekh Raj Chopra and Mr.Ramesh Kumar Chopra is excessive or unreasonable or illegal. The penaltyimposed in the order dated 10[th]April 1986 by the SD did not preclude him,on remand, from determining afresh the penalty amount.

36. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court does not find any merit inany of the grounds urged by the Appellants and upholds the order dated18[th]May 2004 passed by the SD as well as the impugned order dated 27[th]December 2007 passed by the AT.

37. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,000 in eachAppeal.

JANUARY 31, 2014

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

Crl. A. Nos. 91 of 2008, 92 of 2008 & 93 of 2008