1. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 3rd June 2008 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Foreign Exchange (‘AT’) in Revision Petition Nos. 376, 377 and 378 of 2000. By the said impugned judgment, the AT allowed the aforementioned Revision Petitions filed by the Enforcement Directorate (‘ED’) and set aside the two adjudication orders (‘AOs’) dated 6th January 2000 passed by the Special Director (‘SD’), ED exonerating the Appellants herein from the charges of contravention of Sections 9 (1) (b), 9 (1) (c) and 9 (1) (d) read with Section 64 (2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973 (‘FERA’).

Background facts

2. The background facts are that Oki Estates (P) Ltd. (‘OEPL’) purchased a farm house and land situated at Mehrauli in New Delhi by 12 registered sale deeds dated 2nd March 1995 from Apaar Construction Private Limited (‘ACPL’) whose director Mr. Rakesh Jain is the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2008. The sale consideration of Rs.23,76,000 was paid by 12 pay orders of Rs.1.98 lakhs each and the balance Rs.1,51,24,000 was paid in cash to Mr. Rakesh Jain by some unknown persons on behalf of Mr. Som Chai Chai Sri Chawla (the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 2008) who is a resident of Bangkok, Thailand. Mr. Ravinder Jain and Mr. Sri Chawla (Appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 756 and 818 of 2008 respectively) were Directors of OEPL.

3. On 24th June 1995 in response to summons issued to him under Section 40 FERA, Mr. Rakesh Jain made a statement purportedly admitting to having received the 12 pay orders for Rs.23,76,000 and cash of Rs.1,51,24,000 from unknown persons on behalf of Mr. Sri Chawla. He claimed to have been introduced to Mr. Sri Chawla by one Mr. L.R. Madan. The statement of Mr. Madan under Section 40 FERA was recorded on 26th June 1995. Mr. Sri Chawla gave a declaration on 1st March 1997 at the Embassy of India in Bangkok stating that he had paid to two persons, who came on the instructions of Mr. Rakesh Jain, Thai Bahts in the sum of 1,09,50,000. The statement of Mr. Ravinder Jain was recorded on 13th February 1997. The residential premises of Mr. Ravinder Jain and business premises of OEPL were searched on 19th February 1997. The statement of one Mr. Sunil Kapoor was recorded on 29th October 1996.

4. On the basis of the above evidence gathered, a Memorandum/Show Cause Notice (‘SCN’) dated 11th February 1998 was issued to the three Appellants stating inter alia, that by remitting an amount equivalent to Rs.1,51,24,000 from abroad, Mr. Sri Chawla appeared to have contravened Section 9(3), Mr. Rakesh Jain had contravened Section 9(1)(b) and Mr. Ravinder Jain had contravened Section 9(1)(d) read with Section 64(2) of FERA. They were asked to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against them under Section 50 FERA and as to why the farm house and land should not be confiscated under Section 63 of the FERA.

5. In a reply dated 30th August 1999 counsel on behalf of Rakesh Jain pointed out to the ED that he had been assessed by the income tax authorities and in an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (‘CIT’) on 20th August 1998 the sale price of Rs.23,76,000 shown on the 12 sale deeds was accepted as correct. The sale deeds of 99 other transactions of sale of lands in the adjoining areas for approximately the same price were also enclosed with the said reply. It was also pointed out that Mr. Rakesh Jain had been forced to make the statement under Section 40 FERA There were also inconsistencies in the statements of Mr. Rakesh Jain and Mr. Sri Chawla in as much as Mr. Rakesh Jain has stated that he was paid the money at his residence in Delhi whereas Mr. Sri Chawla stated that he had paid it in Bangkok. It may also be mentioned that on 30th June 1995 itself Mr. Rakesh Jain through a representation to the Finance Minister retracted in writing the statement made by him on 24th June 1995 alleging that he had been beaten up and coerced by the offici