ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Vs. SUB INSPECTOR OF PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision arises under the following circumstances: -

(2.) On a careful and anxious consideration of the matter, I am of the view that the learned Magistrate has misdirected himself in directing the parties to adduce evidence. The Magistrate is not expected to inquire into the matter, because the offence stated to have been committed is not one triable by him or cognizable by the police. The offence is one to, be investigated by the officers of the Enforcement and prosecuted by them. The Act has invested them with very wide powers in this regard. S.19E and F of the Act provide for the summoning and examination of witnesses. A full dressed inquiry is provided for in the Act. There is also the provision for appeal by the aggrieved party to the Appellate Board and from the decision of the Board, finally to the High Court. So, the inquiry is to be conducted by the Director of Enforcement and the evidence if any, intended to be produced by the party, is to be produced before that authority and not before the Magistrate. The 1st respondent has in his report, submitted to the court, stated that the investigation conducted by him disclosed that the accused had contravened S.5(1)(aa) and 5(1)(c) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and that he had moved the Enforcement Directorate in the matter. This report of the S.I, should prima facie have been accepted by the learned Magistrate and issued the necessary directions to hand over the amount to the Enforcement Officer for purposes of further investigation. The learned Magistrate seems to think that under S.523 Cr.P.C. he is bound to make an inquiry to find out the person entitled to the possession of the property. The section no doubt, gives the Magistrate power to make an order for the disposal of the property seized by the police, but such an inquiry is not contemplated in the present instance for the obvious reason that the property is not claimed by the Enforcement Officer as a rival claimant. They are asking for custody of the article, only for the purpose of investigation.

(3.) The direction by the learned Magistrate that the parties should adduce evidence would tend to show that he is contemplating an inquiry into the ownership of the J property. This, he is not competent to do under S.523 of the Code. The Enforcement Officer is asking for temporary possession or custody of the money by virtue of his right under the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to be in such possession or custody.