MOOL CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return to him the currency notes to the tune of Rs. 21,830/ - seized from him by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate on September 17, 1985. The return of the currency notes to the tune as aforesaid is primarily claimed on the ground that their retention beyond a period of one year is in contravention of Section 41 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short hereinafter referred to as `the Act'), more so when within the year of the seizure of the currency notes neither any proceedings under Section 51 of the Act had been commenced, nor proceedings under Section 56 of the Act had been commenced before a Court.

(2.) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 37 of the Act the business premises of M/s. Govind Ram Sita Ram, Sarafa Bazar, Sikar and the residence of petitioner Mool Chand were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, New Delhi and as a result of which Foreign Exchange to wit U.S.$.200, Omani Riyals 70, K. Dinar 126, Indian currency Rupees 11,830/- and documents from business premises and U.S.$.402, Saudi Riyals 264, Quati Riyals 120, Omani Riyals 14, Omani Palea 100, Indian currency. Rs. 10,000/- and documents from residential premises respectively were recovered and seized. The total amount of the Indian currency seized as aforesaid comes to Rs. 21,830/-. Because the officer of the Enforcement Directorate had reason to believe that Indian currency which had been seized as aforesaid and in their opinion will be useful or relevant to the investigation of the proceedings under the Act, a search warrant as aforesaid was issued and in addition to the foreign currency, Indian currency was also seized. The present writ petition is confined to the return of the Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 21,830/and not in respect of the other foreign exchange recovered as a result of the search from the business premises and residential premises as aforesaid. A notice dated September 15/23, 1986 under Section 51 of the Act to show cause was issued to the petitioner, which, according to the petitioner, was received by him on September 25, 1986. The petitioner under the aforesaid show cause notice was required to show cause as to why proceedings under Section 50 of the Act be not initiated against him. The petitioner through his counsel sent a notice on September 26, 1986 for return of the seized Indian currency, because the Enforcement Directorate had not initiated any proceedings within one year from the date of seizure of the currency.

(3.) It is not disputed in the return filed by non-petitioners that a show cause notice was issued on September 15, 1986 prior to one year with regard to the seizure of documents as required under Section 41 of the Act and by issue of notice proceedings under Section 51 of the Act have also commenced within one year of the seizure of the Indian currency and, therefore, even beyond a period of one year the Indian currency could be retained and the retention is legal. It is also the case of the non-petitioners that prosecution under Section 56 of the Act has already been filed against the petitioner in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Jaipur on December 23, 1986 and those proceedings are still pending.