- (1.) The Criminal Appeal No. 631/ 90 is directed by the two appellants namely, K. T. S. Mohammed and M. Jamal Mohamed and Criminal Appeal No. 632/ 90 is directed by Amanullah Quareshi. All the three appellants are challenging the correctness of the common order made by the High Court of Madras in Criminal Revision Cases Nos. 229/81 and 239/81 respectively dismissing the revisions and confirming the judgment of the lower appellate Court made in Cr.A. Nos. 221 and 222 of 1980 which in turn affirmed the judgment of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellants under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.-T. Act).
(2.) The facts leading to the prosecution case are well set out in the judgments of the Courts below. Nevertheless, we think it necessary to recapitulate the basic matrix, though not in details, in order to enable us to give our own reasons for the findings which we will be arriving at.
(3.) The first appellant who is the brother-in-law of the second appellant received a cash of Rs. 6 lakhs, brought by a person from Bombay for distributing the said amount to various persons as per the instructions received from a person at Singapore. While he was engaged in the said illegal transaction, the Enforcement Directorate, Madras raided his premises at No. 34, Appu Maistry Street, Madras- 1 on 19-10,66 and recovered a sum of Rs.4,28,713/- and certain documents in coded language relating to the disbursement of the cash. After the search the first appellant K. T. M. D. Mohammed was interrogated by Shri Amritalingam, Enforcement Officer of Madras (PW 4) and the second appellant, Jamal Mohammed was interrogated by Shri Pancheksharan, Enforcement Officer on 19-10-66 and their statements were recorded under Exhs. P 39 and P 40. The first appellant under Exh. P 39 has admitted that he (sic) a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs from a person of Bombay on the previous day for being disbursed to various parties, and that Rs. 50,000 / - and Rs. 48,000 / - were paid to one Baskaran alias Kannan and Angappan of Sarathy and Co. respectively and the amounts were disbursed on receipt of instructions from one Gopal of Singapore whose full address he did not know. The second appellant in his statement Exh. P 40 has admitted the receipt of the amount by the first appellant and the disbursement of Rs. 50,000/- to Bhaskaran and Rs. 40,000/to Angappan as instructed by the first appellant in compliance of the instructions received from Singapore.;