This appeal has been filed under section 23-A (6) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) to impugn the conviction under section 5 (1) (c) read with section 23 of the Act.
2. The appellant was tried by the F. E. R. Tribunal and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 12 months vide judgment dated 26th August 1967. Muhammad Amin, another accused in the same case, was, however, acquitted. The prosecution case is that the appellant had paid three sums of money viz., Rs. 1,500 on 23rd December 1964, Rs. 1,500 on 21st January 1965 and Rs. 2,500 in April 1965 to Saeeduddin at Karachi on behalf of Nazim Husain, a Pakistani national then residing in Iran and accordingly had contravened section 5 (1) (c) punishable under section 23 of the Act. Upon detection of these payments, show-cause notice was issued on 18th October 1965 and in his reply dated 20th August 1966 the appellant denied these payments, whereupon a complaint was filed before the F. E. R.
Tribunal in November 1965. The learned Tribunal reached the conclusion that the appellant had paid these sums of money to Saeeduddin and accordingly had contravened section 5 (1) (c) of the Act and thus convicted him.
3. The prosecution examined Saeeduddin, Nazim Husain, his brother Kazim Husain and Perwez Khan to establish its case.
I have been taken through the evidence of these witnesses. The appellant is implicated by Saeeduddin. No question was put to him as to why he would falsely implicate the appellant and single him out of all persons in Bombay Bazar, Karachi for a reason other than that what he has given. The learned Tribunal while appraising his evidence has observed :-- "There is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Saeeduddin. Nothing has been brought on record to assail his evidence. No motive has been suggested. The learned counsel for the accused urged before me that in letter Exh. 13 the name of the person from whom the amount of Rs. 2,500 was to be received was not mentioned, but this was explained by Saeeduddin who stated that on the previous two occasions he had received the amount from Habibullah accused and, therefore, the Bombay Wala referred to him. The accused has failed to rebut the evidence which was adduced against him."
The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to advance any argument to shake the credibility of this witness, particularly in the light of these observations, and I agree with the assessm ent of this evidence.
4. It was emphasised that the prosecution has not proved as to on whose behalf the appellant had paid these sums. The testimony of Saeeduddin coupled with Exhs. 13 and 15 provide the answer, Saeeduddin has unequivocally stated that it was at the behest of Nazim Husain that the appellant had paid these sums and produced Exhs. 12 and 13 which are the letters written A by Nazim Husain from Iran to this effect. Nazim Husain has himself deposed that he had paid Iranian currency to Khan Bahadur Dost Muhammad Faiz for remitting its equivalent in Pakistani currency to Saeeduddin. In the circumstances, there cannot be any doubt that it was paid at the behest of Nazim Husain, apparently by the latter's agent.
5. Again it was urged that the name of the appellant does not appear in these two letters, nor has he been named by Nazim Husain in Exh. 13 or Exh.
15. He is . described in Exh. 13 as'Bombay Bazarwala friend' and in Exh. 15 as 'Bombaywala friend' and this description cannot single him out with any certainty. Saeeduddin has stated in his cross-examination that this description referred to the appellant as on previous occasions he had also received money from him. Though his identity was not disclosed in the two letters yet this is not without a reason for the letters were likely to be intercepted and the transaction, which was otherwise intended to be secret to avoid penal conse - quences, would become known. No question was suggested to Nazim Husain with a view to show that the description in the two letters was not intended to apply to the appellant. In these circumstances, it is not possible to accede to the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the description in these two letters was not referable to the appellant. Agreeing with the assessm ent of the evidence by the learned Tribunal, I would uphold his conviction.
6. Lastly, he urged for the reduction of the line. Havingregard to the fact that the impugned transaction took place in 1965 and the time that has elapsed and the expense incurred in defending against the accusation particularly when there is nothing to show that the appellant has benefited from these transaction, I would reduce the fine from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 1,000, or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four months. The balance of the fine, if paid, should be remitted.
Subject to this modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. . Sentence reduced.