BHASKARAN PILLAI Vs. ENFORCEMENT DTRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in this original petition is whether the retention of certain documents belonging to the petitioner and seized by the second respondent is sustainable in law, in view of certain provisions contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for brevity 'the Act')

(2.) The facts are short and not in serious dispute. On 16-9-1976, the enforcement authorities searched the residence of the petitioner and seized certain documents. On 13-7-1977 the petitioner, through his counsel, issued Ext P2 notice for the return of the documents. What followed was Ext. P4 notice dated 4-8-1977 issued by the Enforcement Officer. This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution was laid for the issue of a writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction compelling the respondents to return the documents seized from the petitioner on 15-9-1976.

(3.) A brief reference to the relevant sections and the rules of the Act may be helpful in resolving the dispute. The enforcement authorities are empowered to search premises by virtue of S.37 of the Act. The power of seizure of documents, etc. is conferred on the officers under S.38 of the Act. Regarding the documents so seized, the other relevant provision is S.41 of the Act, which I may read: