IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 662 of 2003() --------------------- APPL.12/1990 of APPELETTE TRIBUNAL FOR FOREIGN EXCHANGE, NEW DELHI .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT. ---------------------------------- THEDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAMKUMAR RESPONDENTS: APPELLANT/ACCUSED. ------------------------------- K.VEERANKUTTY, KEEZHISSERIL HOUSE, MUDATHUPADI, OOTY ROAD, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.R.RAJESH KORMATH FOR R1 SMT.M.R.MINI FOR R1 SMT.SANJANA R.NAIR FOR R1 SRI.JAYKAR.K.S. FOR R1 SRI.V.S.ROBIN FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------- M.F.A. (FERA).NO.662 OF 2003 (E) ----------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T KOSHY,J. One K.Ahamed Kunhi's residence was searched and unaccounted money was seized. It has come out from the statement of K.Ahamed that he has distributed about Rs.40 lakhs as compensation amount on behalf of one Sheik Ahamed Haji, who is doing business in Abudhabi. According to his statement, out of the Rs.40 lakhs, Rs.26 lakhs was received from various unknown persons and Rs.14 lakhs was received from K.Veerankutty, respondent in this case, at the instructions of Sheik Ahmed Haji. The sum and substance of the statement of Veerankutty was that Sheik Ahmed Haji is his father-in-law and Rs.14 lakhs entrusted by him was given to Syed Alavi Haji as instructed by the father-in-law. He is not aware how the amount is due to Syed Alavi Haji and how Haji is going to spent that money. Syed Alavi Haji and Veerankutty were arrested by the Special Director of Enforcement Directorate (FERA) and a penalty of Rs.8,50,000/- was imposed on Sri.Syed Alavi Haji and MFA.662/03 2 Rs.4 lakhs was imposed on Veerankutty. Veerankutty filed an appeal. Penalty was imposed under Section 9 (1) (b) and 9 (1) (d). The respondent's contention was considered by the appellate tribunal. Mainly it is contended that his statement was obtained by coercion. It is also contended that he was not aware how the money is being used. He only handed over the money given to him by his father-in-law as instructed by him. Tribunal reduced the fine after considering the facts and circumstances of the case. The Tribunal did not hold that Veerankutty is not guilty because he has no mensrea or has retracted his statement as contended by the appellant. But considering the circumstances and the role played by Veerankutty, penalty was reduced. We are of the opinion that it is a discretionary order by the Tribunal and no question of law is involved in this appeal, and hence, this appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE prp MFA.662/03 3 J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 () --------------------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T --------------------------------------------------------- 4th August, 2008