Plea of ignorance of law rejected.

RAMANUJAM, J. :- The appellant herein is aggrieved against the order dated 5-10-1979, of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board which affirmed the order dated 9-3-1976 of the Assistant Director of Enforcement holding the appellant guilty of contravention of S.5 (1). (aa) and S.9 (1) (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts,1947 and 1973 respectively and levying a penalty of an aggregate sum of Rs. 15,000 in respect of these violation.

2. On information that the appellant has received certain payments from a person in India under instructions from a person resident abroad, the appellant was summoned to appear before the Chief Enforcement Officer. He gave a statement that two sums of Rs. 2000 and Rs. 3000 were received by him by sale of paddy and denied that the said amounts received by him represented payments received under instructions from a person residing abroad. As the statement given by him was found not satisfactory on enquiry, again he was summoned to appear on 3-3-1976 and on that date he gave a statement that his co-brother S.A. Ibrahim working in Singapore as a clerk in a shop represented to him in September, 1973, that he has arranged to send a sum of Rupees 2000 by means of bank draft sent by a person in India, that he received the bank draft from a person in India and credited the same in his bank account on 19-9-1973. He also stated that he received two similar drafts for Rs. 2000 and Rs. 1000/- in Feb. 1974 and May, 1974, respectively in the same manner under instructions from S.A. Ibrahim at Singapore through unknown persons in India and that the said amounts were spent by him for maintaining the family of S.A. Ibrahim who were staying with him. In view of the said subsequent statement wherein the appellant has admitted that he has received a sum of Rs. 2000 in September, 1973, and a sum of Rs. 2000 in Feb. 1974, and a further sum of Rs. 1000 in May, 1974, under instructions from his co-brother S.A. Ibrahim of Singapore through bank drafts drawn by persons in India, two show cause notices dated 3-3-1976 were issued to the appellants for contravention of Ss.5 (1) (aa) and 9 (9) (b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Acts,1947 and 1973 respectively for having received the various amounts referred to above from a local person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange without general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India. The appellant filed his objections on 3-3-1976 requesting the adjudicating authorities to decide the case on 3-3-1976 itself since it would be difficult for him to go over to Madras again in connection with the case from his native place. Accordingly the case was adjudicated on 3-3-1976. The Assistant Director of Enforcement gave a personal hearing to the appellant and during the personal hearing, he had admitted the contravention of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 to the extent of Rs. 2000 and the provisions of the Foreign Exchange regulation Act, 1973 to the extent of Rs. 3000. He further pleaded that the contravention was out of ignorance of law and that the transgression was unintentional. The Assistant Director of Enforcement, after perusal of the records and the statements made by the appellant both before and at the time of the personal hearing, found that the appellant had contravened S.5 (1) (aa) of the 1947 Act for having received a sum of Rs. 2000 and S.9 (1) (b) of the 1973 Act for having received the two payments amounting to Rs. 3000 and that the receipt of the amounts by the appellant cannot be said to be due to ignorance of law especially when he has suppressed the truth in his original statement dated 20-12-1975, and therefore it is not a fit case for extending any lenient treatment. For the said violations an aggregate penalty of Rs. 15000 was levied.

3. The appellant took the matter in appeal and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board found that the finding of the Assistant Director of Enforcement i