Skip to content


Daulat Ram Sharma Vs. Director of Enforcement - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFERA
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case Number S.A.O. No. 44 of 1982
Judge
Reported in1985(6)ECC53
AppellantDaulat Ram Sharma
RespondentDirector of Enforcement
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
foreign exchange regulation - penalty--purchase of properties by appellant in the names of his sons in foreign countries from funds brought in through authorised channels--lending of appellant's name to foreign bank accounts of sons--no operation of such accounts by appellant--only a technical offence--heavy penalty not warranted--nominal penalty would suffice--foreign exchange regulation act (46 of 1973). - j.v. gupta, j.1. this appeal is directed against the order of the foreign exchange regulation appellate board dated 20th august, 1979 whereby in appeal the penalty of rs. 10,000 imposed by the additional director of enforcement vide his order dated 16th march, 1978 was reduced to rs. 5,000. in the order under appeal it has been observed that no foreign exchange has gone out of india nor any which was receivable in india has been withheld. what the appellant did is to purchase the properties in the names of his sons from funds brought by him through authorised channels and utilised the usufruct in acquiring more property. he lent his name to the accounts being maintained in foreign banks by his sons and there is no indication that he operated the accounts. it has been further observed.....
Judgment:

J.V. Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board dated 20th August, 1979 whereby in appeal the penalty of Rs. 10,000 imposed by the Additional Director of Enforcement vide his order dated 16th March, 1978 was reduced to Rs. 5,000. In the order under appeal it has been observed that no foreign exchange has gone out of India nor any which was receivable in India has been withheld. What the appellant did is to purchase the properties in the names of his sons from funds brought by him through authorised channels and utilised the usufruct in acquiring more property. He lent his name to the accounts being maintained in foreign banks by his sons and there is no indication that he operated the accounts. It has been further observed therein that surely when admittedly there is no trafficking in foreign exchange, it would lacerate the mind of an Indian businessman coming home in the evening of his life, if he is asked to pay Rs. 10,000 for purchasing property in the name of his sons and hence the ends of justice would be met by reducing the penalty to Rs. 5000.

2. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties I am of the considered view that on the basis of the observations made in the order under appeal it was a fit case where even the penalty of Rs. 5000 was not warranted and only a sum of Rs. 500 would have met the ends of justice. Moreover, it was only a technical offence, and therefore, such a heavy penalty was not warranted.

3. Consequently the penalty is reduced from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 500 and the appeal is allowed to that extent and disposed of accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //