2013 (9) TMI 920 - HC - FEMA

Refund of seized amount - Investigation procedure - Held that - Though the money was seized on 09/05/2011 at about 11 O clock in the night, till date the investigation is not completed. If the respondent authorities are of the opinion provisions of FEMA Act are violated by the appellant, investigation must be completed within a reasonable time. It is more than one year since the investigation is pending. In that view of the matter, though we are not agreeing with the relief sought by the appellant - there has to be time frame for completion of the investigation by the respondent authorities that is Directorate of Enforcement - Appeal is disposed of directing respondents 1 and 2 to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - Decided partly against petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Allegation of harassment by respondent authorities for seized money.
2. Refusal by Single Judge to interfere with the investigation.
3. Pending investigation to ascertain the source of the seized money.
4. Delay in completing the investigation.
5. Setting a time frame for completing the investigation.

Analysis:
The appellant raised a grievance against the respondent authority for harassing him despite explaining the source of the seized money. The Single Judge declined to interfere with the ongoing investigation to verify the genuineness of the appellant's claims. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed to the High Court.

The Assistant Solicitor General informed the court that the investigation was still in progress. The appellant stated receiving the money from an individual named Mr. Binoy, who borrowed it from his mother-in-law in Kerala. The investigation aimed to establish the origin of the money found in the appellant's possession.

Despite the money being seized over a year ago, the investigation remained incomplete. The High Court acknowledged the need for a reasonable time frame for investigations involving potential violations of the FEMA Act. While not entirely agreeing with the relief sought by the appellant, the court emphasized the importance of timely completion of investigations by the Directorate of Enforcement.

Consequently, the High Court disposed of the appeal by instructing the respondent authorities to conclude the investigation promptly, setting a deadline of four months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment for its completion.