The Enforcement Directorate, Bombay received certain information that M s. Tushar Enterprises, M s. Aum Enterprises and M s. Shah Enterprises all situated at Bombay had remitted abroad foreign exchange worth about Rs.
A few facts relevant to decide this appeal may be stated.
1.30 crores from the detenu that the said Ram and the detenu used to receive 5 each as their share that Rams job was to prepare the documents and send the same from Hong Kong that the detenu used to bring the documents and money to him and that the job of Tushar Shah was to sent money through bank.
against all the above said four persons under the provisions of COFEPOSA.
As a follow up, the residential premises of Pankaj Valia and one Ramesh as well as some business premises were searched by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate.
The above appeal is preferred by the detenus son Rajesh R. Khushlani challenging the judgment and order dated 20.4.1992 passed by the High Court of Bombay dismissing the Criminal Writ Petition No.
While explaining the modus operandi of remittance of the foreign exchange, Tushar Shah inter alia stated that as regards remittance sent in the names of Shah Enterprises one Mr. Ram, resident of Hong Kong used to prepare the documents and the said Ram is a friend of the detenu that the detenu used to companylect Indian currency and fake import documents at the instance of the said Ram and give him for depositing in the bank for the purposes of effecting remittances abroad that he had received approximately a sum of Rs.
In addition, some more statements were also recorded from various other persons inclusive of the officials of the Union Bank of India.
In this companynection, it would be worthwhile to refer to the allegations made in paragraph 16 of the grounds of detention From the document information furnished by Union Bank of India Bombay from time to time and from the statements, dated 31.7.1991 and 5.8.1991 of Shri S.V. Shitre, Deputy Manager, Foreign Exchange Department, Union Bank of India, Khand Bazar Bombay the following facts have emerged.
The proprietor of the said firm was one Shri Tushar M. Shah residing at Bombay.
In the companyrse of the statements, Tushar Shah has implicated some more persons including himself, namely, Kirit L. Shah and Pankaj Valia.
On the basis of the information given by Tushar Shah separate statements were recorded from Kirit L. Shah on 25.2.1991, from the detenu and one Pankaj T. Valia on 26.2.1991.
1412 of 1991 filed by him questioning the legality of the detention order, passed against his father, namely, Ramesh Khushlani by the first respondent, namely, the Joint Secretary to the Government of India in exercise of the powers companyferred under Section 3 1 of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 hereinafter referred on as the Act with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the companyservation of foreign exchange and directed him to be detained and kept in custody in the central prison, Bombay.
5 crores on the strength of faked bogus import documents through Union Bank of India.
Ratnavel Pandian, J. Leave granted and Rule Nisi.
The detenu herein, Tushar Shah, Kirit L. Shah and Pankaj Valia gave their statements involving themselves in the illegal remittances of the foreign exchange.
On the basis of the aforesaid information, enquiries were made with the Union Bank of India, Bombay and thereafter the residential and business premises of Tushar M. Shah were searched under Section 37 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act for short FERA on 21.2.1991 which resulted in the seizure of certain documents.
The statements of Tushar M. Shah were recorded under Section 40 of the FERA on 23rd and 26th February, 1991, the detail of which are incorporated in the grounds of detention.
