Home Case Index All Cases Companies Law Companies Law + HC Companies Law - 1996 (7) TMI HC This
Issues:
Challenge of search and seizure under sections 37 and 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Writ of mandamus for return of seized documents and computer machine. Maintainability of the writ petition. Violation of section 37 provisions. Applicability of Criminal Procedure Code safeguards. Justification for search and seizure. Analysis: The petitioner, as the chairman of a company, challenged a search and seizure conducted by an Enforcement Officer under sections 37 and 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner alleged non-compliance with the Act and sought the return of seized documents and a computer machine. The Enforcement Officer justified the search based on information received and the necessity for investigation. The petitioner argued that the search was illegal due to lack of pending investigation and absence of reasons for seizure. The petitioner contended that safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code should apply to searches under section 37. The petitioner cited legal precedents to support the applicability of these safeguards. The court examined sections 37 and 38 of the Act and relevant legal precedents. It considered the requirement of reasons for search and seizure under the Criminal Procedure Code. The court analyzed the applicability of these provisions to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the necessity for maintaining secrecy in investigations related to foreign exchange violations. The court reviewed the records to determine the justification for deviation from standard procedures in the search and seizure process. Ultimately, the court found that there was sufficient justification for the deviation from standard procedures in conducting the search and seizure. The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that there were no grounds to issue the requested writ. The court emphasized the importance of maintaining secrecy in investigations related to foreign exchange regulations for the nation's interest. The court also highlighted that the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code are not entirely applicable to the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and deviations may be permissible to serve the Act's purpose, subject to justification when challenged in court.
|