A. Tajudeen Vs Union of India (Supreme Court of India)
Supreme Court has set aside a conviction under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973, delivering a sharp rebuke to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for its reliance on uncorroborated statements and its failure to produce key evidence, which the court suggested “may well be a fictitious creation.” In the case of A. Tajudeen Vs Union of India, the apex court ordered the ED to refund the confiscated amount of ₹8,24,900 and a penalty of ₹1,00,000, pulling down the entire case built by the agency.
The judgment systematically dismantled every piece of evidence presented by the ED against the appellant, A. Tajudeen, who was accused of violating Section 9(1)(b) of the FERA.
The Non-Existent Statement
A central pillar of the ED’s case was an alleged statement made by Mr. Tajudeen on April 20, 1989. The Supreme Court noted several fatal flaws with this piece of evidence. Firstly, the agency had not even mentioned this statement in its formal memorandum of charges issued on March 12, 1990, making it inadmissible. Secondly, the appellant had explicitly denied ever making such a statement in his official reply.
The court observed that the ED made no effort to prove through “cogent evidence” that the statement was genuine. The most critical blow to the ED’s credibility came when the Supreme Court, seeking to examine the document for itself, summoned the case file. The ED failed to produce the alleged 1989 statement or any record connected to it. Terming this a “seriously unfortunate attitudinal display,” the court was left with no option but to conclude that the statement might be a fabrication by the agency. For these reasons, the court ruled that no reliance could be placed on it.
