((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FERA APPEAL NO.91 OF 2007 Shri. Prakash Dalmia .. Appellant Vs. Union of India and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Madhu Patel for the Appellant. Mr. Y.R. Mishra with Mr. A.S.Rao, Mrs. S.V. Bharucha and Mr. Parag Vyas i/by H.P. Chaturvedi for Respondent Union of India. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 DATED: JANUARY 25, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . A show cause notice was issued to the appellant under Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of the FERA Act, 1973. On showing cause, contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant were rejected. The first authority found firstly that the declaration as required to claim amnesty was not filed. Secondly, the authority found that the appellant himself made an admission that he had paid money and against that money two cheques were issued in his favour against NRE account. As far as N.R.E. account holders were concerned, there was no relation whatsoever with him ((-2-)) and on this finding the appellant herein being in contravention imposed the penalty as set out therein. . The appellant being aggrieved by the order preferred an appeal. That appeal came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 29.8.2007. Notice was given to the appellant but he chose not to appear. However, it appears that the appellant had filed written submissions based on that the learned tribunal was pleased to dispose of the appeal. One of the contention urged on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel is that though the notice was issued to him under Section 9(1)(b) and (9)(1)(d) of FERA Act, the appellate authority has found him guilty of the offences under Section 9(1)(a) in respect of which no show cause notice was issued to him. We have considered the said submission. We find that in Para 2 the learned tribunal has dealt with the issue that the appellant herein was issued notice under Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) of FERA Act. The learned tribunal also noted that retraction was not sufficient and in the circumstances found that considering the material the confessional statement though retracted appears to be more natural, can be accepted. While holding the appellant guilty, it appears that there is a typographical mistake in as much as it is set out ((-3-)) that it is under Section 9(1)(a) of the FERA Act 1973. The entire discussion is in respect of Section 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d). In these circumstances, mere typographical error in the order cannot result in holding that no show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner under Section 9(1)(a) of the FERA Act. There being two concurrent findings of fact, in our opinion, there is no merit in this appeal which is accordingly disposed of. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)