Delhi District Court
Enforcement vs . Anil Kumar Juneja Cc No. 137/1/83 Page 1 ... on 4 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN,
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 01, PATIALA
HOUSE, NEW DELHI
Mr. J.C.Makhija,
Asstt. Director of Enforcement,
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
Lok Nayak Bhavan, New Delhi ..................... Complainant
Versus
Anil Kumar Juneja,
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Juneja
R/o. IIL40, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi ...................... Accused
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0000051983
CC No. 137/1/83
U/s 56 of The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
JUDGMENT U/S 355 Cr. P.C.
a) Sl. No. of the case 02403R0000051983
b) The date of commission 09.09.1983
of the offence
Name of the complainant Mr. J.C.Makhija,
Asstt. Director of Enforcement
c) Name, parentage & Anil Kumar Juneja,
address of accused. S/o Sh. Raj Kumar Juneja
R/o IIL40, Lajpat Nagar
New Delhi
d) Offence Complained of or Under Section 56 of The Foreign
proved Exchange Regulation Act, 1973
e) The plea of the accused The accused submitted that he never
and his examination dealt in the foreign exchange and has
been falsely implicated in the case.
Enforcement Vs. Anil Kumar Juneja CC No. 137/1/83 Page 1 of 6
f) The Final order Accused is Acquitted U/s 56 of FERA,
1973.
g) The date of such order 04/10/12
Date of institution of case : 20.09.1983
Date of reserving judgment/order : 10.09.2012
Date of Pronouncement : 04.10.2012
BRIEF FACTS OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION :
1. Complainant filed the complaint on allegations that on 09.09.83 the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi recovered and seized foreign exchange worth over Rs. 11 lakhs, details as per annexure B, besides this 12 gold biscuits of foreign origin and Indian currency of Rs.3,29,629/ and certain incriminating documents from the premises of one Sh. N.C.Jain and said Sh. N.C. Jain was subsequently arrested on 11.09.1983 and a complaint was filed on 12.09.1983 ans was produced before this Hon'ble Court and he was remanded to judicial custody till 20.09.1983.
2. While the search of the premises of Sh. N.C. Jain accused in another case was going on, the above said accused namely Sh. Anil Kumar Juneja came to the spot along with Rs.20,000/ and his personal search was taken and the said amount was seized by the Enforcement Vs. Anil Kumar Juneja CC No. 137/1/83 Page 2 of 6 D.R.I. In his voluntary statement dated 11.09.1983 before the Enforcement officer, the accused disclosed that he had gone to the premises of Sh. N.C.Jain on many occasions to buy foreign exchange allegedly for his employer namely Sh. Dharam K. Goplani. He also admitted that the amount of Rs.20,000/ was given to him by Sh. Advani, an employee of Laxman Goplani. Besides this, he also admitted that on previous six occasions, he had purchased foreign exchange worth Rs.99,000/ from Sh. N.C.Jain, for Sh. Dharam K. Goplani.
3. It has been alleged that since the accused has been indulging in sale and purchase of foreign exchange in contravention of Section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 read with Section 64 of the said Act.
4. On conclusion of pre charge evidence, vide orders dated 17.08.2001, the accused was charged to face the trial for the offences punishable U/s 8(1) and 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1973 read with Section 64 of the said Act.
5. In order to prove its case, the complainant in post charge evidence examined three witnesses.
Enforcement Vs. Anil Kumar Juneja CC No. 137/1/83 Page 3 of 6
6. PW1 J.C. Makhija, Assistant Director Enforcement, who has proved complaint as Ex. PW1/A.
7. PW2 Jugal Kishor, Chief Enforcement Officer deposed that during the year 1983, he was posted in Delhi zone office and on 11.09.1983 and 20.09.1983 he recorded two voluntary statements Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B tendered by the accused.
8. PW3 R.K.Dubey deposed that he was working as Enforcement officer. On 11.09.1983, he recorded the statement of Sh. N.C.Jain which is Ex. PW3/A.
9. On conclusion of the complainant's evidence, the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. The accused person denied the involvement in the commission of crime and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Although the accused choose to lead evidence, however, no evidence has been led on behalf of the accused.
10. I have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties and I have gone through the record.
Enforcement Vs. Anil Kumar Juneja CC No. 137/1/83 Page 4 of 6
11. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the complainant has to prove that the accused was involved in purchasing the foreign exchange without having any special or general permission from the RBI. Except the three witnesses as noted above the complainant has not examined any other witness. The PW1 merely proved the complaint, PW2 during his cross examination testified that he only knew that Indian currency of Rs. 20,000/ was seized from the accused and he was not associated with the search. PW3 has only proved the statement of Mr. N.C.Jain and during the cross examination PW3 has admitted that said Mr. N.C.Jain has already got expired.
12. None of these three witnesses have deposed anything to link the accused in respect of dealing in the foreign currency and there is absolutely no evidence on record to establish the accused persons involvement in purchasing the foreign currency.
13. It has been contended on behalf of the complainant department that the statement of accused record U/s 40 of FERA is self incriminating and the statements have been proved on record as Ex. PW2/A & B which is a material piece of evidence against the accused and on the basis of the same the accused is liable to be convicted.
Enforcement Vs. Anil Kumar Juneja CC No. 137/1/83 Page 5 of 6
14. That it is well settled law that even if the statement of the accused under Section 40 is held to be admissible and even if the Court construes it as being a voluntary statement that it cannot form the sole basis of conviction. I have given thoughtful consideration on this aspect of the case as well. As stated above, there is no evidence on record to link the accused in transacting in the foreign currency and in absence of any evidence in this respect the Court cannot solely rely upon the statements Ex. PW2/A & B to convict the accused.
15. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the complainant has failed to establish the involvement of accused in purchasing the foreign currency and accordingly, the accused is acquitted in the present matter. In compliance of Section 437A Cr.P.C, the accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Bail bonds furnished, considered and accepted for six months in terms of section 437A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court on 04th October, 2012.
GAUTAM MANAN ACMM01: NEW DELHI Enforcement Vs. Anil Kumar Juneja CC No. 137/1/83 Page 6 of 6