TMI Blog1964 (4) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rant was to be taken. He also noted in his application, for the Chief Presidency Magistrate's information : that the seized documents as per enclosed Seizure Memo have been kept with us for scrutiny and those will be retained till the completion of the enquiry or the adjudication proceedings as the case may be and a report will be submitted to Your Honour thereafter. 2. On May 28, 1959, the Enforcement Officer applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for permission for the retention of the seized documents for a period of two months for the submission of further report in the matter. The Chief Presidency Magistrate granted the necessary permission. Similar permission was again granted on applications, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, on July 28 and September 28, 1959. 3. On October 5, 1959, the respondent applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for an order of return of the said documents as the statutory period of 4 months during which the Director of Enforcement could keep the documents had expired, and no proceedings had been commenced against him under s. 23 of the Act. The claim for the return of the documents was based on the provisions of s. 19-A. On O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Government or, as the case may be, the Reserve Bank may, by order in writing, require any such person (whose name shall be specified in the order) to furnish, or to obtain and furnish, to the Central Government or the Reserve Bank or any person specified in the order with such information, book or other document. (3) If on a representation in writing, made by a person authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank, a District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Presidency Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class, has reason to believe that a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act has been, or is being or is about to be, committed in any place, 7. or that a person to whom an order under sub-section (2) of this section has been or might be addressed, will not or would not produce the information, book or other document, 8. or where such information, book or other document is not known to the Magistrate to be in the possession of any person, 9. or where the Magistrate considers that the purposes of any investigation or proceeding under this Act will be served by a general search or inspection, he may issue a search warran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith search warrants in special circumstances and Sections 101 to 103 come under the general provisions relating to searches. 13. The appellant's main contentions are : 1. The provisions of s. 19-A limit the period for retaining the documents seized in execution of a search warrant issued under s. 19 to 4 months by the Director of Enforcement but does not limit the power of the Court issuing the search warrant to pass any orders for the retention of the seized documents or with respect to the disposal of those documents. 2. In the absence of any prescribed procedure for the issue of a search warrant under s. 19, the provisions of Sections 96, 98 and Form 8 of Schedule V of the Code would be applicable to the search warrants issued under s. 19. 3. The Court has inherent power to pass proper orders with respect to the retention of the documents seized for the purposes of investigation and proceedings following it. 14. The respondent contends : 1. Section 19 and 19-A are special provisions which provide for special procedure for investigation of the several offences created by the statute and were enacted in order to remove certain difficulties in investigation wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... therefore of opinion that the provisions relating to searches under the Code which apply to searches under sub-s. (3) of s. 19 are the provisions relating to the conduct of searches and that these provisions are Sections 101, 102 and 103 of the Code. What is to be done with the articles seized does not strictly come within the expression 'searches'. It is dealt with in s. 19-A. It is therefore not correct for the appellant to say that the Magistrate can exercise his power under the Code in connection with property seized under sub-s. (3) of s. 19 of the Act. 16. It follows that any further reference to the Magistrate, as made by the Enforcement Officer in this case, for permission to retain the documents seized was not necessary. The Enforcement Officer has a right under s. 19-A to retain the articles seized in accordance with its provision. What course is to be adopted by the person aggrieved when the Enforcement Officer contravenes the provisions of s. 19-A, in a different matter. The fact that such a contingency may arise does not mean that it is the Magistrate issuing the search warrant who is to be approached and who is competent to deal with the grievance. Any way, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n by him, assuming that the expression 'investigation' includes the retaining of the documents for the purposes of the investigation. 19. Reliance has also been placed for the appellant on the case reported as Mohammad Serajuddin v. R. C. Mishra [1962] 1 Suppl. S.C.R. 545, in support of the contention that the Magistrate retains control over the disposal of the articles seized in connection with the search warrant issued by him. In that case the Court was considering the question of the disposal of the documents seized in execution of a search warrant under s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act. The provisions of that section are different from those of sub-s. (3) of s. 19 of the Act. A search warrant issued by a Magistrate under s. 172 of the Sea Customs Act has the same effect as a search warrant issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure and thus assumes the character of a search warrant issued under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same is not the case with respect to the search warrant issued under sub-s. (3) of s. 19. Further, there is no section corresponding to s. 19-A of the Act in the Sea Customs Act. This case, therefore, is not of help to the appellant. 20. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the documents from the time of their seizure under the impression that the Magistrate could legally order the retention of the documents, presumably as the warrant had directed the production of documents seized, before him. 24. Proceedings under s. 23 did start prior to the order for the return of the documents. Considering the real intention of s. 19-A to be that the Director of Enforcement can retain the documents seized till the final disposal of proceedings under s. 23 of the Act, the Magistrate's order, even if he had not the authority to pass orders for the retention of the documents by the Director of Enforcement, till the final disposal of the proceedings under s. 23, was an order giving effect to the spirit behind the provisions of s. 19-A. The order of the High Court directing the return of the documents to the respondent therefore appears to us to be unjustified in the special circumstances of the case. 25. It is not necessary for us to consider in this case what legal steps the Director of Enforcement could take for retaining possession of the documents seized on the expiry of the 4 months' period in case his investigation in connection with those documen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
