Honble SHARMA, J. – These appeals arise from the judgment dated January 13, 1982 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Appellate Board (for short `the Board;) whereby it modified the order dated December 8, 1977 of the Special Director of Enforcement (for short `the Director)imposing penalties under section 23(1)(a) for violation of Section 9 and 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (for short `FERA). (2). Facts leading to and relevant for disposal of these appeals are as under:– (i) The premises of M/s. Hazari Mal Milap Chand Surana, a firm of Jewellers, dealing in import and export of precious and semi precious stones, at Jaipur, were searched by the Enforcement Directorate and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on July 23, 1973 and some documents were seized. Their Post Box No. 17 in Jaipur was also searched and six letters were recovered therefrom on July 24, 1973 out of which two were addressed to `R. P. Jain P.O. Box No. 17, Jaipur. Statement of Sh. Manna Lal Surana, a senior partner of the firm was recorded, who admitted that out of six recovered letters, four belonged to his firm but remaining two letters had nothing to do with him and they had been planted in his post box by somebody. Sh. Manna Lal Surana, however, stated :– ``Main ek R.P. Jain Delhi wale ko janta hun. Magar mera unse koi bhi len-den ka sambandh nahin hai. Sirf mere pass port lene ke liye mere behnoi jo Delhi main rehte hain unke kehene se inko authority di thi, ye na mere employment main hain na inse mera aur koi sambandh hai. (I know one R.P. Jain belongs to Delhi but I have no business relation with him. Only for the sake of getting passport I gave him the authority on being pursued by my brother in law who resides in Delhi. He is neither under my employment nor have I any relation with him.) The letters addressed to R.P. Jain were marked as A-1 and A-2 by the Director. (ii) The letters A-1 and A-2 indicated that they were obviously were in Code. `Cts. used therein obviously stood for some currency 97.000 Cts. were shown as ``received from Switzerland and remitted to Hanifa. It was currency which was `remitted. Again 31 Cts. were shown as `postage. `Postage was not bought with emerald. It was bought with currency `Similary 35 Cts. and 116 Cts. `Cts. used therein obviously stood for some currency 97.000 Cts. were shown as ``received from Switzerland and remitted to Hanifa. It was currency which was `remitted. Again 31 Cts. were shown as `postage. `Postage was not bought with emerald. It was bought with currency `Similary 35 Cts. and 116 Cts. were shown as `charges. `Charges were paid in currency and not in emeralds. (iii) The investigating officer also collected the incoming cables addressed to `Soorana Jaipur as also cables sent abroad for the period January 1, 1973 to June 15, 1973. Copies of the same have been detai- led out in the judgment of the Director. Out of total twelve cables received and sent during that period, following two may be summarised thus : Cable from Geneva addressed to Soorana Jaipur dated 27.4.1973 (3.20 All) ``Please phone me or Jain urgently Friday. (2) Cable from Geneva dated 21.4.1973 addressed to Soorana Jaipur. ``Contact 326630 Jain. (iv) The Director after issuing show cause notice to the appellants and after providing opportunity of hearing, held vide judgment impu- gned, that appellant firm was holding foreign currency account in Hongkong which it failed to offer for sale to an authorised dealer in India within 30 days of becoming owner thereof. The firm therefore was guilty of violating the provisions of Section 9 of the FERA 1947 read with the relevant notification,and imposedapenaltyofRs. 5000/- under Section 23(1) (a) of the said Act upon the appellant firm and also a penalty of Rs. 5000/- under the said section upon appellant Manna Lal Surana, being senior partner of the firm. It was also held that from the aforesaid foreign Currency account, 22 different transfers were made to persons, other than authorised dealers. Therefore, for violating section 4(1) of FERA 1947, a penalty of Rupees one lakh was imposed upon appellant firm and similar penalty of Rupees one Lakh was imposed upon appellant Manna Lal Surana. (v) Judgment dated December 8, 1977 was challenged by the appellants before the Board. The appellants could not get success in appeal also. The Board dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated January 13, 1982. Following operative order was passed by the Board :– ``As regards the quantum of penalties, it may be stated that we do not find any justification for reduction of the same in view of the large amounts of foreign exchange involved in the contraventions. The Board dismissed the appeal vide judgment dated January 13, 1982. Following operative order was passed by the Board :– ``As regards the quantum of penalties, it may be stated that we do not find any justification for reduction of the same in view of the large amounts of foreign exchange involved in the contraventions. The penalty of Rs. 5000/- imposed on each of the two appellants under the first charge cannot be said to be excessive or out of proportion to the nature and magnitude of the contraventions. We do not feel that any interference is called for as regards the quantum of this penalty. However, as regards the charge under section 4(1) of the Act, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- imposed on each of them is reduced to Rs. 75,000/- (Seventy Five thousand) each, having regard to the fact that we have found them guilty in regard to 8 transactions of transfers only. Subject to this modification the order of the special Director is confirmed and the appeals are dismissed. (3). The FERA 1973 came into force with effect from January 1, 1974 repealing the FERA 1947. Under Section 54 of the FERA 1973, this court can entertain the appeal against the decision of the Board only on questions of law. So the point for determination which arises, is as to whether questions of law involve in these appeals or not ? (4). Mr. Sagar Mal Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant has vigorously canvassed that the finding given by the authorities below is perverse, irrational and is based on mere conjectures and surmises. The presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act was wrongly drawn against the appellants. No such presumption could have been drawn on the basis of copies of cables collected from the Control Telegraph Office Bombay. Letters received from Post Box No. 17 were in the name of R.P. Jain, whose relationship with the appellants, could not have been presumed. The authorities below arbitrarily imposed the penalty upon the appella- nts without any legal evidence on record. The Director had no jurisdiction to hold denovo enquiry. On the other hand Mr. V.S. Gurjar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below could not have been interfered with. No question of law involves in these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. (6). The Director had no jurisdiction to hold denovo enquiry. On the other hand Mr. V.S. Gurjar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the authorities below could not have been interfered with. No question of law involves in these appeals and they deserve to be dismissed. (6). I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. (7). There are three stages in the adjudication proceedings under Rule 3 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules 1974 (for short `the Rules). This rule enjoins that before proceedings under Section 51 of FERA 1973 are initiated the adjudicating officer shall, in the first instance, issue a notice to the concerned person requiring him to show cause. If he is satisfied that no enquiry under Section 51 is called for, he may drop the entire proceedings. In the second step, if after considering the cause, if any, shown by such person the adjudicating officer is of the opinion that adjudication proceedings should be held, he shall issue a notice fixing a date for the appearance of that person. At the third stage the adjudicating officer after consideration of the whole record if he is satisfied that the person has committed the contravention, shall pass an order in writing imposing such penalty as he may think fit. This would also mean that in case the adjudicating officer finds that no contravention has been committed, he will still nevertheless pass an order in writing. (8). The Director, in the adjudication proceedings has followed Rule 3 of the Rules, issuing second notice under second step as mentioned hereinabove, cannot be termed as `denovo enquiry. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that `denovo enquiry was held, devoid of force. (9). Under Section 53 of the FERA 1973 the adjudicating officer and the Appellate Board had all the powers of a civil court for summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses and for receiving evidence on affidavits. After admitting the existence of `R.P. Jain of Delhi by appellant Manna Lal Surana, in his statement, at least affidavit of `R.P. Jain of Delhi ought to have been filed showing his innocence about the letters recovered from Post Box No. 17, which were in the name of `R.P. Jain. After admitting the existence of `R.P. Jain of Delhi by appellant Manna Lal Surana, in his statement, at least affidavit of `R.P. Jain of Delhi ought to have been filed showing his innocence about the letters recovered from Post Box No. 17, which were in the name of `R.P. Jain. But neither the affidavit of `R.P. Jain from Delhi was filed nor application for summoning and enforcing his attendance was moved before the authorities below. Therefore, presumption under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act was rightly drawn by the authorities below. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act reads as under : ``The court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particular case. In this case, the presumption that can legitimately be drawn is that letters addressed to the appellants and posted at place abroad were delivered to them in the usual course, that the copies of the cables obtained from the Central Telegraph Office Bombay, related to cables which were officially received by that office for despatch or delivery and were despatched to, or, as the case may be, delivered at, the prescribed destinations. Appellant Manna Lal Surana attempted to introduce a defence that somebody having business jeliousy with the appellants, had planted the said letters in their post box but such a vague defence, cannot be relied upon. (10). Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the arguments advanced by shri S.M. Mehta, the learned counsel for the appellants. There is no illegality in the findings arrived at by the authorities below. No question of law involves in these appeals. (11). In the result both the appeals are dismissed with costs. Record be sent back.