1. All these appeals were directed against the order of the Deputy Director, Enforcement, Calcutta in adjudication proceedings under section 51 of the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act for alleged contravention of provisions of section 8(1) and 8(2) read with section 64(2) of the said Act, hereafter termed as ‘the Act’ for brevity.

2. The adjudication proceedings were held against six persons of whom these appellants were respondents/Noticee Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. Appeal No. 185 is by Noticee No. 3, appeal No. 194 by Noticee No. 6 and appeal No. 208 by Noticee No. 2 whereas the appeal No. 209 by noticee/respondent No. 1 in the preoceedings. The charge laid in the show-cause notice dated 13-6-1995 against H.P. Karel Noticee No. 1 was for contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act for purchasing of U.S. Dollars 1,57,400 and B.D. Taka 25,000 from Shambhunath Dubey Noticee No. 6 who was never an authorised dealer in foreign exchange during June-July, 1994, the charge against Govardhan Karel was for contravention of section 8(1) and 8(2) read with section 64(2) for abetting H.P. Karel for illegal purchase of foreign exchange, that against Pradeep Kumar Verma was for contravention of section 8(1) for illegal acquisition of foreign exchange of US Dollars and against Ranjan Das and Babul Das was for contravention of section 8(1) read with section 64(2) of the Act. The charge against Shambhunath Dubey was for contravention of sections 8(1) and 8(2) of the Act for the alleged acquisition and sale of US Dollars 1,57,400 and B.D. Taka 25,000 on rates of exchange other than that not authorised by the RBI. H.P. Karel was also asked to show cause for not confiscating the Silver Bar weighing 2,974 gms. and Indian Currency of Rs. 5 lakhs seized from his possession. Pradeep Kumar Verma in his reply statement dated 31-7-1995 had totally denied the charge of unauthorised deals and also denied acqua intance with persons named Babul Das or Ranjan Das. The other noticees, failed to submit any reply to the show-cause notice; so the case was fixed for personal hearing before the adjudicating officer. In the reply dated 24-5-1996 Shambhunath Dubey had denied the charges of contravention and also disputing the legality of the acceptance of the statements of the co- accused against him. The accused persons had also submitted retraction statements on various days. Goverdhan Karel by his letter dated 6-11-1996 denied the charges against him and also disputed the genuineness of the statement allegedly recorded from him by the Enforcement Directorate officials. (H.P. Karel in his reply dated 10-2-1997 not only denied the charges of contravention of sections 8(1) and 8(2) and also alleged purchase of silver bars from any Bangladeshi National together with the plea that he had purchased around 10 Kilogram silver from Krishna Trading Corporation vide Purchase Bill No. 112 dated 21-11-1993 and so the silver seized from him was part of the said silver. H.P. Karel had also retracted his statement so earlier recorded in presence of the Directorate Officials with the plea that it was never voluntarily made by him but was recorded under force, coercion and physical assault and that the statements recorded from the other co-accused also were retracted under such duress and coercion. The cases were transferred to Deputy Director, Calcutta for adjudication; on close of the enquiry, all the accused were found guilty of the charge and were so levied with penalty. The penalty so ordered against Noticee No. 1 Rs. 5,04,000 against Noticee Nos. 3 and 6 were Rs. 5 lakhs each and that against Noticee Nos. 2, 4 and 5 Rs. 10,000 each, besides the order of confiscation of the seized currency, Indian Rs. 5 lakhs and primary silver weighing 2,974 gms. seized from the possession of 1st Noticee. Aggrieved with the said findings and orders, these appeals were preferred by the appellants above named.

Appeal No. 185

3. The appellant herein is none other than Noticee/Respondent No. 3