S HEMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent to return the documents and Indian Currency recovered on 22.12.1997 from the petitioners residential premises at No.15, Lalithapuram Street, Royapettah, Chennai 14.

(2.) Under mahazar dated 22.12.1997, seizure of Indian Currency to the value of Rs.4,92,000/-of different denominations came to be made pursuant to a search made under Sections 37 and 38 of The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the residential premises of the petitioner and her husband Thiru. S.Rajendran situated at Door No.15, Lalithapuram Street, Royapettah, Chennai 14. In the seizure mahazar dated 22.12.1997, the petitioner as well as the witnesses affixed their signatures in proof of the search having been made and the seizure thereafter. The contention of the petitioner is that pursuant to the search made under Section 37 of the Act, by virtue of Section 41 of the Act, in the absence of proper extension of time for the retention of the seized documents, the respondents are bound to return the Indian currency to the value of Rs.4,92,000/- seized from her residential premises. The above submission was made on the premise that admittedly there was no extension of time after the initial period of six months from the date of seizure viz., 22.12.1997.

(3.) The claim of the petitioner was resisted at the instance of the respondents by Mr. K.Kumar, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents by contending that the present seizure under the seizure mahazar dated 22.12.1997 was not an isolated one, but was relatable to various other seizures which came to be made as against the petitioners husband along with the petitioner at different places by way of simultaneous search under Section 37 of the Act, that though no specific time extension was not ordered in respect of the present seizure involved in this writ petition, in respect of the other seizures, necessary notices were issued on 18.06.1998 in exercise of the power vested with the second respondent under the Proviso to Section 41 of the Act, that subsequently in respect of all the seizures made, including the one involved in this writ petition, adjudication proceedings also commenced under show cause notice dated 21.12.1998 and the adjudication proceedings have also ended in the levy of penalty on all the persons including the petitioner and her husband.