KAMIDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question for decision in this civil writ petition is whether the issue of notice dated 2nd March 1970 to the petitioner by the Director of Enforcement, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, to show cause why adjudication proceedings as contemplated by section 23-D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act VII of 1947 should not be taken against him, after Indian currency notes of the value of Rs. 50,000 were seized from his person as a result of his search under section 19A of the said Act on 3rd March 1969, is a "proceeding" within the meaning of section 19G of the said Act entitling the Director of Enforcement to retain the said currency notes until the disposal of the said proceeding. According to clause (7) of section 19A the expression "documeKnt", employed in section 19A as well as sections 19C to 19G of the Act, includes Indian currency, foreign exchange and books of account.

(2.) This civil writ petition was filed on the supposition that no notice had in fact been issued wn the period of one year from the date of the said search; but this question has been set at rest, against the petitioner, by the production of not only the photostat copy of postal receipt, dated 2nd March 1970. but also the photostat copy of the original postal envelope inside which the original notice (dated 2nd March 1970) was sent by registered post to-the address mentioned by the petitioner himself at the time of the search-23, East Park Road. Karol Bagh, New Delhi; it had been returned to the sender for the reason that no such person was living there. This aspect of the matter, therefore, was not even argued before me.

(3.) Only a few necessary facts which will help appreciate the controversy need be noticed; the facts themselves may be taken from the affidavit of Shri S. M. Bagai, Deputy Director. Enforcement Directorate, dated 4th December, 1970 filed in opptosition to this writ petition.