SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Ker) 279

THULASIDAS
Itty – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director – Respondent


Judgment :-

Petitioner, the accused in C.C. No. 129 of 1986 of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences, Ernakulam, was found guilty under S.56(i)(ii) read with S.40(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to rigorous imprisonment for two months. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the III rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, by judgment in Crl. Appeal No. 176 of 1988 which is challenged in this revision.

2. The allegation against the petitioner was that he failed to appear and to produce the documents summoned by the Enforcement Director, Trivandrum, which was in contravention of S.40(3) made punishable under S.56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short the act).

3. Under S.40(1)of the Act," any gazetted officer of Enforcement shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act". Under sub-section (3) of S.40:

"all persons so summoned shall be bound to attend either in person or by aut


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top