MAHESWARAN, J.


These three civil miscellaneous appeals arise out of the common order passed by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (Southzone) Madras (for short-Board) on 30th June, 1980. The Board confirmed the finding that K. T. Subramanian, the appellant in C.M.A. 119 of of 1981, V. E. Vairavan appellant in C.M.A. 120 of 1981 and Arumugham, the appellant in C.M.A. 121 of 1981, are guilty of contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000/- on each for the said contravention. The Board also confirmed the order of confiscation of Rs. 20, 000/- seized from Subramanian and Rs. 30, 000/- seized from the residence of Vairavan and two drafts of Rs. 5, 000/- each seized from Arumugam, to Central Government.


2. The gravamen of the charge against K. T. Subramainan is that he received Rs. 30, 000/- without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India from a local person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchanger on behalf of Kannappan of Singapore, a person resident outside India and thereby contravened the provisions under Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act. K. T. Subramanian is also said to have made two payments to one Kannamai Achi in India amounting to Rs. 10, 000/-, on behalf of Kannappan of Singapore, a person resident outside India without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India, which is a violation of the provisions of S. 5(1)(c) of the Act. But the Director of Enforcement gave him the benefit of doubt in respect of this charge under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act.


3. Vairavan, a resident of Madurai, is said to have contravened the provisions of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act in that he, without the special or general exemption from the Reserve Bank of India, received Rs. 30, 000/- from a local person other than an authorised dealer in foreign exchange on behalf of one Kannappan of Singapore.


4. Arumugam, a resident of Nattarasankottai in Ramnad District, is alleged to have received two payments totalling Rs. 10, 000/- from a local person other than an authorised person on behalf of Kannappan of Singapore without the general or special exemption from the Reserve Bank of India in contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act. He was also alleged to have attempted to receive payments amounting to Rs. 50, 000/- otherwise than through an authorised dealer in foreign exchange on behalf of one Kannappan of Singapore, which is in contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) read with S. 23-B of the Act. The Director of Enforcement found that Arumugam is not guilty under Section 5(1)(aa) read with S. 23-B of the Act, and acquitted him of that charge.


5. Certain facts are necessary to be stated. On 11-4-1972 the house of Vairavan alias Radhakrishnan residing at No. 89, South Avani Moola Street, Madurai, was searched. A sum of Rs. 30, 000/- in Indian currency was found and it was seized. A statement was immediately given by Vairavan wherein he admitted that his father-in-law Arumugam is working as Research Officer at Rubber Institute, Kuala Lampur and his co-brother, Kannappan, is employed in Mobile Oil Company, Singapore, that on instructions from Kannappan, his co-brother, he received Rs. 30, 000/- on 8-4-1972 at his residence from an unknown person and that he was keeping these amounts for being handed over to Kannappan who was expected to be back in India. On 12-4-1972, a pawnshop at Allamman Koil Street, of which K. T. Subramanian was in charge, was searched and the said Subramanian was present during the search. A sum of Rs. 20, 000/- was found and seized. He gave a statement admitting receipt of Rs. 30, 000/- on 7-4-1972 from an unknown person, that that person told him that the amount was to be paid to Arumugam, son of Gnanapandithar Chettiar and that it was received in accordance with the instructions from Kannappan employed in Singapore and that out of that sum, he sent Rs. 10, 000/- in the form of two drafts for Rs. 5, 000/- each in favour of Kannamai Achi drawn on the Bank of Madurai Limited, Nattarasankottai, and the balance of Rs. 20, 000/- was seized by the officers.


6. The residence of Kannamai Achi was also searched and two bank drafts for Rs. 5000/- each in her favour were found and they were seized. She gave a statement admitting that those two drafts were sent by Subramanian Chetty of Gnanapandithan Corporation of Thanjavur as instructed by Kannappan of Singapore and that she gave the drafts to her husband, Arumugam. Arumugam was present at the time of search. He also gave a statement wherein he has stated that he was working as an Advisory Officer to the Rubber Research Institute of Malaysia for about 18 years, that he came to India on 24-3-1972 on leave and before leaving Kuala Lumpur he entrusted $ 16, 000/- to his son-in-law, Kannappan, with instructions to send the same to India and he also instructed Kannappan to give Rs. 30, 000/- to his other son-in-law Vairavan alias Radhakrishnan and Rs. 30, 000/- to Subramanian of Gnanapandithan Corporation and two drafts for Rs. 5000/- each were sent by Subramanian of Thanjavur and the Indian currency of Rs. 20, 000/- and Rs. 30, 000/- seized were received in accordance with the instructions of Kannappan of Singapore against $ 16, 000/- entrusted at Kuala Lumpur. But on 9-5-1972 Arumugam sent a petition stating that the statements taken from him, Vairavan and Subramanian, were taken by force and coercion and that they are not voluntary. He would say that when the premises at Ellammankoil Street was searched, there was a book balance of Rs. 14, 734-98 and in order to make up a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- the Officers of the Department insisted on Subramanian drawing Rs. 10, 000/- from the Bank and to bring it to the premises and that the officers then took Rs. 20, 000/- and left the balance in the premises. Later, show cause notices were issued and the Additional Director of Enforcement found that Arumugam has received two drafts in contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act. He found Arumugam guilty under Section 5(1)(aa) of the Act and imposed on him a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. He also found K. T. Subramanian guilty of contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act and imposed on him a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. He further found Vairavan guilty of contravention of the provisions of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act and imposed on him a penalty of Rs. 5000/-. He also confiscated the sum of Rs. 20, 000/- seized from Subramanian, Rs. 30, 000/- seized from Vairavan and two drafts of Rs. 5000/- each seized from Arumugam, to Central Government.


7. The appellants would contend that the statements of Vairavan Chettiar and Subramanian and Arumugam were not voluntary, but were produced by coercion, that Rs. 30, 000/- seized from the residence of Vairavan Chetty belong to the joint family of Vairavan and his brothers, that Rs. 20, 000/- seized from the shop was made up of Rs. 10, 000/- which Subramanian brought from the Bank on the instructions of the Officers of the Enforcement Directorate and of Rs. 10, 000/- out of the sum of Rs. 14, 734-98 which was available in the shop. We may at point out that the statements made by the appellants were not retracted immediately. It was Only on 9-5-1972, nearly a month after the original statements, that Arumugam sent a petition stating that the statement was taken under threat and coercion. The statements dated 11-4-1972 and 12-4-1972 and also the statement of Subramanian given on 12-4-1972 contain such wealth of details that it leads to only inference that they were voluntary could not have been procured by force or coercion. No claim for Rs. 30, 000/- seized, was immediately made either by Vairavan or by Subramanian. It was only on 9-5-1972 that a claim is made by Arumugam. As pointed out by the Board and in our view rightly, these persons are not illiterate people who could be prevailed upon by the authorities to make statements according to the wishes of the authorities. Arumugam is an Advisory Officer to the Rubber Institute of Malaysia and he had been in Kuala Lumpur for eighteen years. Vairavan and Subramanian are also persons who are educated. Vairavan is the son-in-law of Arumugam. It is not possible to believe that these persons would have been forced to give such statements. We are unable to persuade ourselves to believe that these statements given on 11-4-1972 and 12-4-1972 by the appellants were not voluntarily made. But it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Enforcement Officers are in the nature of police officers and any statement made to them is deemed to be a statement made to a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act. In other words, these statements are inadmissible. It is pointed out that it requires corroboration. A ruling of the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Nanoo v. Emperor, 1927 AIR(Bom) 4 : 28 CrLJ 122) is brought to our notice. That was a case where it was held that an Abkari Officer who exercises the powers conferred by the Cr.P.C. upon an officer in charge of a police station for the investigation of a cognizable offence is a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act and therefore the confession made to him is inadmissible. It is pointed out for the appellants that so far as the offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act are concerned, the position of an Enforcement Officer is not different from that of an officer in charge of a police station investigating a congnizable offence and it would be perfectly logical to hold that the confession recorded by any Enforcement Officer during an investigation into a foreign exchange control offence would be hit by S. 25 of the Evidence Act and the Officers investigating these offences must be deemed to be police officers for the purpose of S. 25 of the Evidence Act. In Badku Joti Savant v. State of Mysore, 1966 CAR 245, 1966 (3) SCR 698, 1966 AIR(SC) 1746, 1966 (72) CRLJ 1353, 1978 (2) ELT 1323, 1984 ECR 618 : 1966 CAR 245, 1966 (3) SCR 698, 1966 AIR(SC) 1746, 1966 (72) CRLJ 1353, 1978 (2) ELT 1323, 1984 ECR 618 : 1966 CAR 245, 1966 (3) SCR 698, 1966 AIR(SC) 1746, 1966 (72) CRLJ 1353, 1978 (2) ELT 1323, 1984 ECR 618) the question whether Deputy Superintendents of Customs and Excise who are given powers of an officer in charge of a police station are police officers within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act, came to be considered. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court that even though a Central Excise Officer may have, when making enquiries for the purpose of the Act, powers which an officer in charge of a police station has when investigating a cognizable offence, he does not thereby become a police officer within the meaning of S. 25 of the Evidence Act and the statements of accused persons recorded by him are not hit by that section. There is no warrant to hold that an Enforcement Officer should be deemed to be a police officer.


8. In Collector of Customs v. Kotumal Bhirmal, 1967 AIR(Mad) 263 : 1967 CrLJ 1007) a Full Bench of this Court held that the statements recorded by enquiring officers of the Customs Department under sections 107 and 108 of the Customs Act, do not become inadmissible in evidence in a criminal trial by reason of the bar provided by S. 25 of the Evidence Act and these statements are not hit by S. 162 of the Cr.P.C.


9. The matter, in our view, is set at rest by the observations of the Supreme Court in Nilratan Sircar v. Laxmi Narayan, 1965 AIR(SC) 1, 1965 (71) CRLJ 100, 1964 (7) SCR 724, 1907 (31) ILR(Born) 438 : 1965 AIR(SC) 1, 1965 (71) CRLJ 100, 1964 (7) SCR 724, 1907 (31) ILR(Born) 438.


The Supreme Court observed :


"The Act (The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947) is a special Act and it provides under Section 19A for necessary investigation into the alleged suspected commission of an offence under the Act, by the Director of Enforcement. The provisions of the Cr.P.C. therefore will not apply to such investigation by him" *


(Brackets supplied)


It is thereof manifest that Enforcement Officers cannot investigate under Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C. for the special Act, namely, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, specifically provides and regulates the manner of investigation.


10. Once the statements are found to be voluntary, there is no impediment to act on them as the statements are not made to a police officer. The statement of Subramanian Chettiar is very clear. He states that he received Rs. 30, 000/- from an unknown person at the pawnbroker's shop and that person who gave that amount has told him that the amount has to be paid to Arumugam Chettiar, son of Gnanapandithar Chettiar of Nattarasankottai, and that the amount of Rs. 30, 000/- which he has received has to be given to Arumugam Chettiar under instructions from Kannappan. He further admits that he purchased two drafts for Rs. 5, 000/- each drawn on the Bank of Madurai Ltd. in favour of Kannammai Achi. In the face of this statement, the new case, namely, that there was a cash balance of Rs. 14, 734-98 in the firm when the officers came for search and they wanted Rs. 20, 000/- and persuaded Subramanian to get two cheques for Rs. 5000/- each on the Bank of Madurai and Indian Overseas Bank, Thanjavur, and sent another employee, Shanmugam, to collect the cash and the proceeds of these two cheques together with Rs. 10, 000/- was seized by the officers, has no legs to stand. We are not impressed with the affidavits of Mahazar witness. The Additional Director has not paced reliance on the Mahazar witnesses for, he says in his order that these two Mahazar witness testified in another affidavit that Rs. 20, 000/- was recovered from an iron-safe. The other affidavits are by K. T. Subramanian and Shanmugam. K. T. Subramanian is an appellant while Shanmugam is an employee of the firm. It should further be noted here that in reply to the letter of Arumugam dt. 9-5-1972, the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Madras, has stated that the statements given by Arumugam, Subramanian and Vairavan alias Radhakrishnan are voluntary and that the sum of Rs. 20, 000/- which was kept inside the inner safe in an iron-room was seized and that the allegation that Rs. 10, 000/- was withdrawn from the Bank and that was also seized, is not correct.


11. The next contention is that Kannappan who is the son-in-law of Arumugam and to whom he has instructed to send the amount to India, was absent in Malaysia from January to May 1972. The passport entries have been filed to show that Kannappan was absent from Singapore during March-April, 1972. It is pertinently pointed out by the Additional Director that there are no entries between January and April, 1972 and there is no departure entry from U.S.A. at all. The photostat copies of the pages of the passport do not show any departure or arrival entry at Singapore. In our view, he has rightly not placed any reliance on these passports.


12. The statement of Arumugam was retracted nearly a month later. It shows that he entrusted $ 16, 000/- to his son-in-law, Kannappan, before he left for Kuala Lumpur. The statements of Subramanian, and Vairavan lend support to this statement. In view of this admission, the question whether Kannappan was present at Malaysia from January to May, 1972 does not assume any importance. It should also be noted here that the statement made by Vairanvan and Subramanian Chetty have not been retracted by them. There appears to be no statement brought to our notice which shows that they have retracted the statements made by them earlier. It is only in the statement of Arumugam made on 9-5-1972, twenty-eight days after the search, that for the first time it is stated that the statements of Vairavan, Subramanian and Arumugam are not voluntary. The statements voluntarily given by Vairavan, Subramanian and Arumugam very clearly show that Subramanian and Vairavan received Rs. 30, 000/- by order of Kannappan, a resident of Singapore and that they are guilty of having contravanced S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act.


13. The charges against Arumugam are and under Section 5(1)(aa) and under Section 5(1)(aa) read with S. 23-B of the Act. The Additional Director has acquitted Arumugam of the charge under Section 5(1)(aa) read with S. 23-B. The other charge against Arumugam is one under Section 5(1)(aa). Two drafts of Rs. 5000/- each were seized from the residence of Arumugam. These drafts were in the name of Kannammai Achi, wife of Arumugam. It is pointed out that this amount having been sent to Arumugam of Malaysia, there is no contravention of S. 5(1)(aa) of the Act. But, here we may point out that Arumugam in his statement has admitted of giving $ 16, 000/- to Kannappan, his son-in-law an

d it was Kannappan who sent the amount to India and that money is received in India by Arumugam under order of Kannappan. It should be noted that the two drafts were encased on 27/28, March, 1972 and were purchased out of the proceeds of two Bank drafts. The contention is that these two drafts were actually purchased out of the proceeds of two drafts issued by the Indian Bank and the Indian Overseas Bank, Kuala Lumpur for Rs. 5000/- each and encashed by K. T. Subramanian of Tanjavur. Ex. A7, an inland letter dt. 11-4-1972 is now produced. It is purported to have been written by Subramanian to Arumugham. This letter purports to show that these drafts were purchased out of the amounts received by encashing the two foreign drafts received through the banking channels. It is pointed out by the Board that the letter was created to serve as a piece of evidence. It is no doubt true that the letter gives the numbers of the drafts of the foreign Bank. But then one should take note of the statement of Subramanian himself made on 12-4-1972, that these two drafts where purchased after Rs. 30, 000/- was received by him from an unknown person. Secondly, there is no entry in the books of Gnanapandithan Corporation in regard to the encashment of these two drafts. There is also no reason why a single draft was not purchased. It is also not clear as to why the amount was sent through the driver and the letter by post. Both could have been sent through the driver. These facts made both the Additional Director and the Appellate Board to come to the conclusion that the letter was one created to serve as a piece of evidence. The Appellate Board was right in its conclusion that the charge that Arumugham received Rs. 10, 000/- under instruction of Kannappan has therefore to be upheld. 14. We confirm the order of the Appellate Board and dismiss the appeals with costs.