V N SUDHAGARAN Vs. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that he is being implicated under Sections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, hereinafter called as 'FERA' in short.

(2.) It is stated in the petition that he is a Director in a Company M/s. Super Duper T. V. Private Limited. This Company is doing business in making the features and short films for being telecast in the satellite channel. The features and films are done in Madras and given to satellite channel in Madras. The petitioner has been summoned under Section 40 of the FERA in an on going investigation and as a follow-up action. It was considered necessary by the respondent and summons were issued on 9-7-1996 for appearance on 15-7-1996, for which he sought three weeks adjournment. The respondent has issued fresh summons on 15-7-1996 for his appearance on 18-7-1996. The petitioner again took adjournment by his letter dated 17-7-1996. Further summons were issued for his appearance on 22-7-1996. Again, the petitioner sought adjournment. On 22-7-1996, a fresh summons for his appearance on 30-7-1996, was issued with a covering letter stating that no adjournment would be given. Apprehending arrest in the event of his appearance before the respondent, he has filed this application. He has stated the basis for his apprehension at para 8 of the application contending that one other Director of J. J. T.V. Private Limited Viz., Mrs. Sasikala had also appeared before the respondent in pursuance of the summons in connection with an enquiry relating to the affairs of the J. J. T.V. and she has been arrested and is in judicial custody. It is also stated that his apprehension is bona fide and if he appears before the respondent, he would also be arrested and incarcerated. He has denied any violation of the provision of the FERA and pleaded his ignorance about the affairs of J. J. T.V. Privated Limited, but admitted that he had contributed certain sum of money for purchase of an Estate at Nilgiris. That purchase was by obtaining a loan and it is not in violation of any of the provisions of the FERA.

(3.) It is an indisputable fact that at the stage of investigation contemplated under Section 40, it cannot be stated that a person summoned is in the position of an accused or that he is obliged to give evidence in any criminal proceedings before a Police Officer. Section 40 of the FERA has deliberately and purposely conferred wide powers for securing all or any of the person, who can assist the progress of the investigation in order to get at the real truth before taking any positive or specific action against the actual culprit. In exercise of the powers under Section 40 of the FERA summons have been issued and it cannot be said, it is an act without authority of law. Putting any fetters on such power amounts to placing a veil or protective umbrella making it difficult or at times rendering it even impossible for the Enforcement Authorities to ascertain the real state of affairs in respect of a particular contravention or aspect which they intent to investigate.