9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (9) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or of Police at Chengannur found the petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 211 of 1966, travelling in taxi with ₹ 25,000 odd in currency notes and certain documents of strange contents. As he could not account for his possessions, the Sub Inspector suspected some sharp practice and therefore, seized the documents the terms 'documents' in this judgment includes currency notes and arrested the accused. On information obtained from him the Circle Inspector, Chengannur, went to the house of the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 236 of 1966 and recovered another sum ₹ 11,000 in currency notes the same day. All the documents thus seized were sent to the Court of the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur. After investigation, the Police reported to the Mag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947) . 3. Section 19-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947-1964, hereinafter 'the Act' for short reads: If an officer of Enforcement, not below the rank of Assistant Director of Enforcement has reason to believe that any documents which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under this Act, are secreted any place, he may authorise any officer of Enforcement to search for and seize .....such documents . Sub-section (7) of Section 19-A of the Act defines that in Sections 19-C to 19-G, the expression 'document' includes Indian currency, foreign exchange and books of account. 4. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the Enforc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al importance. In effect and substance the order of removal dated October 1, 1954, was based on the ground that the appellant violated Rule 15 of the Government Servants' Conduct Rules and Rule 11 of the Fundamental Rules; he accepted private employment without sanction of the Government while he was still in Government service. That was the basis for the enquiry against the appellant and that was the basis for the order of removal passed against him. For these reasons we hold that there is no merit in the appeal ........ . And recently in Lekharaj Sathramdas v. N.M. Shah, AIR 1968 SC 334, the Supreme Court held:-- It is true that the order Exts. P-18 and P.16 is signed by Mr. Mathur as 'the Managing Officer-cum-Deputy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cerned. 5. The next question is whether he can, by virtue of that authority, move the Sub Magistrate, who has the custody of the required documents, to deliver them to him. Under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, property seized by the police on suspicion and produced before a Magistrate has to be returned to the person entitled to the possession thereof. Normally, when no offence is found by the Magistrate, the person entitled may be the person from whom the property was seized. But if the Enforcement Officer is entitled to seize the property immediately from such person, he may be the person entitled to the present possession thereof. It would be an empty formality, in the face of the application moved by the Enforcement O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners by the Enforcement Officer under Section 19-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 6. Counsel for petitioners urged that there is no ground in these cases to suspect any violation of the Foreign Exchange law by the petitioners. The learned Advocate General, on behalf of the Enforcement Officer, assures me that the investigation in the matter, is not yet over. I am afraid that the adequacy, or sufficiency of grounds to suspect violations of Foreign Exchange law by the petitioners cannot he gone into in these motions. The Sub Magistrate has observed that the petitioners have not made any attempt before him to explain how they came into possession of the large amounts seized from them. It is too early now to have any opinion on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
