9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Seizure of currency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 3. Violation of Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. 4. Commencement of proceedings under Section 23 for retention of seized documents. 5. Interpretation of service of notice under Rule 11 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner's currency was seized under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act based on information that he received unauthorized payment. The petitioner sought the return of the seized amount through a writ petition, initially challenging the Act's applicability and constitutional violations. However, during arguments, new grounds were raised concerning the lack of notice for commencing proceedings under Section 3 within a year. The petitioner voluntarily admitted to receiving the money from an unknown person for property purchase as per his uncle's instructions. 2. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner for violating Section 5(1)(a) of the Act, but it was returned unserved. The petitioner's request for money return after one year was denied by the respondent, citing the attempted notice delivery. The issue arose whether proceedings under Section 23 had commenced within a year to extend the retention period of seized documents. 3. Section 19-G allows retention of seized documents for a year unless proceedings under Section 23 are initiated. The petitioner argued that proper notice service is crucial for proceedings to commence. The respondent contended that sending a notice by registered post to the last known address was sufficient. However, the petitioner emphasized the necessity of actual notice service as per Rule 11 of the Adjudication Proceedings and Appeal Rules. 4. The interpretation of service of notice under Rule 11 was crucial in determining the commencement of proceedings under Section 23 for retaining seized documents. The court held that mere sending of notice by registered post was not enough, and actual service or affixing the notice as prescribed in the rules was mandatory. Since the notice was returned unserved and not affixed as required, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing the petition and making the rule absolute without costs. The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of compliance with prescribed conditions for retaining seized amounts beyond the initial period.
|
