Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

J.VIJAYAKRISHNA PILLAI versus THE DIRECTOR

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


J.VIJAYAKRISHNA PILLAI v. THE DIRECTOR - MFA No. 89 of 2006 [2007] RD-KL 10586 (19 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA No. 89 of 2006()

1. J.VIJAYAKRISHNA PILLAI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR,
... Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.A.NOOR MUHAMMED

For Respondent :SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

Dated :19/06/2007

O R D E R

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

M.F.A.NO.89 OF 2006 (E)

Dated this the 19th day of June, 2007



J U D G M E N T

KOSHY,J.

Petitioner was employed in a Gulf country for about 13 years. He came back in 1988. Since he decided not to go back, he requested his friend to sent back his money invested in the Bank at Abudhabi and the money was sent back to him. He deposited Rs.80,000/- in the wife's account in Velinalloor Service Co-operative Bank and kept Rs.20,000/- in cash. The above amount was confiscated stating that the amount was sent without getting permission from the Reserve Bank of India. Investigating authority found that without permission of the Reserve Bank of India, receiving so much money is violation of Section 9(1) (f) (i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. But considering the fact that appellant deposited 80% of the amount in Bank shows that he has no mens rea. Out of his ignorance this was done. The adjudicating authority and M.F.A.89/2006 2 1st appellate authority also found so and a lenient view was taken. He was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as penalty and it was to be realised from Rs.1,00,000/- confiscated. Minimum penalty is only Rs.5,000/-. Here in this case appellant has earned the money by hard labour for about 13 years. When he decided not to go back his friend collected the amount due to him and sent the amount. Non obtaining of permission of R.B.I. was only due to ignorance. However, there is a technical violation of the Act as found by the authorities. In the above circumstances, we reduce the penalty to Rs.10,000/- and after adjusting the penalty, balance amount should be returned to the appellant. With the above observations this M.F.A. is partly allowed.

J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE

prp

J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

M.F.A.NO. OF 2006 ()

J U D G M E N T

8th June, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.