IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FERA APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2008 FERA APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2008 FERA APPEAL NO. 72 OF 2008 Shri Vivek Kumar Pukhraj Jain ) Flat No.31, Prem Bhavan, 3rd floor, ) S.B.Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400 005. )..Appellant Vs. Union of India ) Through Special Director, ) Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai. )..Respondent Mr. R.Sheshagopal with Mr. Girish R.Agraal for the appellant. Mr.Y.R.Mishra with Mr. V.Kantharia for the respondent. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATE: 23rd April, 2009. DATE: 23rd April, 2009. DATE: 23rd April, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.H.BHATIA,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.H.BHATIA,J.) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER J.H.BHATIA,J.) 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and other record. 2. To state in brief, it is the case of the Enforcement Directorate that on the basis of certain information that the present appellant used to deal in illegal purchase and sale of foreign currencies, a search of the residential and business premises of the present appellant and others was conducted on 20th March, 1995 and foreign currencies of US Dollars, Italian Lira, Stg. Pound, Omani Riyal, Swiss Franks, UAE Dirhams, Kuwaiti Dinar, Malaysian Dollars and Australian Dollars along with the Indian currencies were recovered from the business premises of one Dharamchand Lakhara. In the search of the premises of the present appellant, several note-books and chits were recovered indicating the transactions in purchase and sale of foreign currencies. It was revealed that the present appellant had purchased US $ 84,250/- from various persons other than authorized dealers and without any permission from RBI and had sold illegally. The statements of the present appellant, his servant, Ravindra Panchal and several other persons were recorded. The statements revealed that the present appellant had indulged in illegal purchase and sale of the foreign currency and he had jotted down some of the transactions in his small note book. The present appellant and his servant Ravindra Panchal had also confessed these dealings. The investigation revealed the contravention of Section 8(1) and (2) read with Section 64(2) of FERA. Accordingly, three show cause notices were issued. Out of three show cause notices, the first notice was issued to the present appellant in respect of the purchase and sale of US $ 84,250/- and third show cause notice was issued to the present appellant and Dharamchand Lakhara in connection with the purchase of US $ 7000/- by the present appellant from the said Dharamchand Lakhara. Notice No.2 was issued to Dharamchand Lakhara about the recovery of different foreign currencies from his business premises. After the show cause notice, the adjudication proceeding was initiated. Though the present appellant as well as Dharamchand Lakhara had retracted their confessional statement. The Deputy Director found both of them guilty. The present appellant was found guilty not only on the basis of confessional statement of himself and other persons, but also on the basis of certain chits written in the handwriting of the present appellant showing the calculation of foreign currencies purchased and sold. The Special Director found that the said chits as well as the recovery of the foreign currencies provided corroboration to the confessional statement and inspite of their retraction from the confessional statement they could be held guilty. In the result, the Deputy Director imposed penalty of Rs.16 lakhs on the present appellant under Section 8(1) and (2) and also imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh on him under Section 8(1) and (2) read with Section 64 of the FERA on the basis of the two separate notices. The present appellant was found to be the main culprit in the whole episode. Ravindra Panchal, who was the servant and one Kailash Chandra Lakhara were also imposed some penalty and Dharamchand Lakhara, who was involved in these transactions along with the present appellant was imposed penalty of Rs.1 lakh on one count and Rs.50,000/- on the other count. The present appellant and Dharamchand Lakhara filed two separate appeals before the appellate Tribunal. Both the appeals were heard together and came to be dismissed by common order dated 10.6.2008. 3. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Director as well as the appellate Tribunal and of the retracted confessional statements of all the concerned persons, including the present appellant and the chits and the note book in the handwriting of the present appellant, we find that merely because the present appellant and others had retracted their confessional statements, those statements could not be outright rejected. 4. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that even though the confessional statement of the appellant was allegedly dated 6.4.1995, it was immediately retracted on the next date. However, the record reveals that it was actually retracted on 7.5.1995 i.e. one month after the confessional statement was recorded. In the application submitted to the learned C.M.M. on 7th May,1995, it was alleged that statement of the appellant before the Enforcement Directorate as not voluntary and was prepared on the dictation given to him. The learned Counsel contended that when the statement is retracted not only by the present appellant, but by the other persons including his servant Ravindra Panchal, the burden would lie on the Revenue to prove that the present appellant is guilty of contravention of the provisions of FERA. He also contended that in view of the authority in Vinod Vinod Vinod Solanki vs. Union of India 2009(233) E.L.T.157 (S.C.) Solanki vs. Union of India 2009(233) E.L.T.157 (S.C.) Solanki vs. Union of India 2009(233) E.L.T.157 (S.C.) if the confession is retracted, it must be corroborated by some other independent and cogent evidence before the person making the confession is held guilty under FERA. However, we find that not only there were confessional statements which were retracted later on, the Enforcement Directorate also recovered the chits and diary in the handwriting of the present appellant and the said documentary evidence provided corroboration to the confessional statements of the present appellant and others. In view of this, we find that the concurrent finding of facts of both the authorities below cannot be interfered by this Court. No question of law is involved in this appeal. 5. In the result, the Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)