LexA. TAJUDEEN versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2014] 10 S.C.R. 864 A TAJUDEEN v. UNION OF INDIA (Civil Appeal No. 5773 of 2009) OCTOBER 10, 2014 [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND C. NAGAPPAN, JJ.] Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: c ss. 9(1 )(b) and 50 - Proceedings initiated against appellant for violation of provisions of s.9(1)(b) - Authorities relying upon a statement alleged to have been made by appellant before officers of Enforcement Directorate - Held: No reliance was placed on the said statement in .. the 0 impugned memorandum - Per se, therefore, it was not open to the authorities to place reliance on the said statement, while proceeding to take penal action against appellant, in furtherance of the impugned memorandum - Besides, as appellant had refuted having executed any such statement, E it was imperative for Enforcement Directorate to establish through cogent evidence that appellant had made such a statement, and having failed to do so, it was not open to them to place reliance on the alleged statement, for establishing charges against appellant in impugned memorandum. F ss.9(1)(b) and 50 - Proceedings initiated against appellant for violation of provisions of s.9(1)(b) - Statements of appellant and his wife recorded by officers of Enforcement Directorate - Held: The said statements are not to be referred to as corroborative pieces of evidence, but as primary G evidence to establish the guilt of appellant - In the absence of any independent corroborative evidence, the said statements of appellant and his wife recorded during the raid and while appellant was under detention, which, immediately, on release, were retracted, could not constitute the exclusive H 864 A. TAJUDEEN v. UNION OF INDIA 865 basis to determine the culpability of appellant - The entire A action taken by Enforcement Directorate against appellant in furtherance of the impugned memorandum is set aside - Evidence. Evidence: Execution of 'mahazar' in respect of recovery of money - Held: Merely because the "mahazar'' was attested by two independent witnesses would not lead credibility to the same B - Such credibility would attach to the "mahazar'' only if the said two independent witnesses were produced as witnesses, C and the appellant was afforded an opportunity to cross- examine them - Such a procedure was not adopted in the instant case - Besides, the said 'Mahazar is insufficient to establish violation of s.9(1)(b) of the 1973 Act - Thus, the execution of 'mahazar' is inconsequential for the D determination of guilt of appellant. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. There is no doubt that no reliance has been placed on the alleged statement made by the E · appellant on 20.4.1989 before the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, in the memorandum dated 12.3.1990. Per se, therefore, it was not open to the authorities to place reliance on the said statement, while proceeding to take penal action against the appellant, in F furtherance of the said memorandum dated 12.3.1990. Additionally, it is apparent from the reply (Annexure P-9) furnished by the appellant to the memorandum dated 12.3.1990, that he clearly and expressly refuted having executed any statement on 20.4.1989. It was, therefore, G imperative for the Enforcement Directorate to establish through cogent evidence that the appellant had indeed made such a statement on 20.4.1989. It also cannot be overlooked that no action was initiated against the H 866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 10 S.C.R. A appellant on the basis of the statement dated 20.4.1989. [para 9) [878-H; 879-A-C] 1.2. Therefore, the statement dated 20.4.1989 could not be relied upon by the Enforcement Directorate to 8 establish the allegations levelled against the appellant through the memorandum dated 12.3.1990. Further, in the absence of having established through cogent evidence, that the appellant had made the statement dated 20.4.1989, it was not open to the Enforcement Directorate to place reliance on the same, for establishing the C charges levelled against the appellant in memorandum dated 12.3.1990. Even before this Court, the alleged statement made by the appellant on 20.4.1989 could not be produced, which seems to be a fictitious creation of the Enforcement Directorate. [para 9-10) [880-A-C; 881-E] D 1.3. The innocence or guilt of the appellant will have to be determined on the basis of the statements made by the appellant and his wife (on 25.10.1989
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.