- (1.) This is an appeal under Section 23(ee) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In an adjudication made under Section 23(1)(a) of the Act, the Appellant was subjected to varying amounts of penalties totalling Rs. 22,000 by the Director of Enforcement by an order, dated March 14, 1972. He preferred an appeal to the appellate board under Section Section of the said Act which was allowed in part and the penalty was reduced to a total amount of Rs. 2,000. Feeling aggrieved by the appellate order, the Appellant has preferred a further appeal to this Court under Section 23(ee) as aforesaid.
(2.) Initially, charges on eight counts were framed as against the Appellant on eight show-cause notices for violation of different provisions of the said Act. In an adjudication before the Director of Enforcement he was acquitted of two of the charges out (sic) of the rest. Such conviction Having been set aside, re-adjudication was directed and on such re-adjudication on six charges he was convicted of five. The five charges of which the Appellant was convicted were shortly as follows: (i) that the Appellant borrowed a sum of ? 600 from Messrs Geoffrey Turner Company of London and thus acquired foreign exchange in contravention of Section Section of the said Act; (ii) that the Appellant received two cheques of ? 500 each which was collected through his bank account and which was held by him in violation of the provision of Section 9 of the said Act; (iii) the Appellant maintained and operated three foreign bank accounts in contravention of Sections 4 and 5 of the said Act; (iv) that the Appellant borrowed from two persons the sums of ? 750 and ? 200 respectively and thus acquired foreign exchange in violation of Section 4 of the said Act. (v) that the Appellant paid a sum of Rs. 50,000 to a person at Karachi in Pakistan without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India.
(3.) On the appeal before the appellate board, Appellant was acquitted of the last of the five charges, as aforesaid. His conviction on the other charges were upheld though penalties imposed were materially reduced. It is the order of the appellate board which is under challenge now before me in this appeal. This appeal, however, is limited only to questions of law.;