PRAKASH HIRALAL SHAH Vs. SUPDT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) TO state in brief, during the year 1984, the Bombay office of the Enforcement Directorate had searched the premises of the petitioner and others. After preliminary investigation, a criminal complaint, being Case No.15/S/1986 was filed by the Enforcement Director against the petitioner and others. However, later on, the said complaint was withdrawn by the Enforcement Directorate. On 18.9.1994, the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Bombay, had written a letter to the CBI for the purpose of investigation of the alleged contravention of the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short FERA). Treating that letter as an FIR, the CBI investigated the case. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of Enforcement filed second complaint, which is registered as 18/S/1989, on the basis of the investigation made by CBI. Some witnesses for prosecution have been examined before framing of charge.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 i.e. CBI, Enforcement Directorate and the Union of India contended that under the provisions of Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, notifications have been issued whereby the officers of Delhi Special Police Establishment may investigate certain offences under the Indian Penal Code and some other Central Acts, including Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the said notification is not sufficient as held by the Supreme Court in C.B.I. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2402. According to him, it is necessary that there should be specific notification under the provisions of FERA. The facts of this case are by and large similar to the case before Supreme Court. Their Lordships observed thus in paras 16, 17, 18, 19 and 21 :-