Provisions of 1947 Act could be invoked.

RAMANUJAM, J. - Since the points involved in all these cases are substantially the same and they arise from one and the same order passed by the Additional Director of Enforcement, they are dealt with together.

2. The appellant in C. M. A. 288 of 1980 and the appellant in C. M. A. 239 of 1980, are husband and wife and they have been found guilty for the contravention of Sections 5 (1) (aa) and 5 (1) (c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, both by the initial authority as well as by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Board and in these appeals they are challenging the orders passed by the Appellate Board.

3. On 27-1-1974, the residence of one Abdul Azeez, the appellant in C. M. A. 288 of 1980 and his wife, the appellant in C. M. A. 289 of 1980, were searched. During the search a few foreign letters account sheets, a note book containing certain accounts and particulars, four pocket diaries, a cheque relating to an account in the Indian Overseas Bank, Kumbakonam, standing in the name of Abdul Azeez and Foreign Exchange valued 295 US 4, Brunel Doller note valued 5 and Ceylon rupees 20 had been recovered. In his statement recorded on that date, Abdul Aziz who is a Malaysian citizen stated that he was running a restaurant in Malaysia and a transport Company in India jointly with his brother-in-law Muthalif and admitted having received Rs. 5000, otherwise than through authorised dealer in foreign exchange by Order or on behalf of a person resident outside India and having made 20 payments amounting to Rs. 31,600, to various parties in India on behalf of his brother-in-law, Muthalif of Malaysia. He had further admitted that he was having in his possession the foreign exchange which was seized from his home, which is the balance of the foreign exchange which he brought from Malaysia in March, 1973. His wife Havva Beevi also admitted in her statement dated 27-1-1974, that she had received 8 payments amounting to Rs. 1,26,700/- as arranged for her by her husband, Abdul Aziz otherwise than through authorised dealers in foreign exchange under instructions from her husband Abdul Aziz. One Basheer, the appellant in C. M. A. 290 of 1980, had also given a statement on 29-10-1974 to the effect that as per instructions of Abdul Aziz he received a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from an unknown person and handed over the same to Havva Beevi. Based on the recovery of the various documents from the residence of Abdul Aziz and his wife and also the statements given by both as also by the said Basheer, show-cause notices were issued to them to show cause why they should not be proceeded against for violation of the provisions of the Act. All the three persons filed objections to the show cause notices and after considering their objection, the Additional Director found the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them in the show cause notices and on the basis of their statements as well as the documents and other materials seized from the residence of Abdul Aziz. All the three filed appeals before the Appellate Board. Before the Appellate Board it was contended that the transactions referred to in the show cause notices did not involve foreign exchange and, therefore, there was no violation of any of the provisions of the Act. However, the Appellate Board found that Abdul Aziz has admitted in his statement; dated 27-1-1974, receipt of Rs. 5000/- through illegal channel in November, 1973, under instructions from Muthalif from Malaysia in connection with the purchase of property for Muthalif, that he has also admitted having made payments totalling Rs. 31,600/- to various parties in India, that as regards the charge under Section 9 (c) for non-surrender of foreign currency and foreign exchange, the evidence on record showed that he failed to surrender within one month the foreign exchange found in his residence and that, therefore, he has been rightly held guilty for violation of S.5 (1)