Retention of post-offence documents under FERA fails where the material is not relevant or useful to the investigation.

Retention of documents under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is justified only where the material is demonstrably relevant to, or useful for, an investigation or proceeding under the Act. A passport issued after the alleged 1985 contraventions could not bear on the commission or investigation of those offences because it did not exist at the relevant time. The passport was therefore not relevant or useful material for retention under sections 34 and 38, and the petitioner was entitled to its return, subject to seeking relief before the trial court.

---

---

Issues: Whether a passport issued after the alleged contraventions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 could be retained by the investigating authorities as relevant or useful material under sections 34 and 38 of the Act.

Analysis: The provisions governing search and seizure permit retention only of documents or things that may be useful for or relevant to an investigation or proceeding under the Act. The alleged contraventions were stated to have occurred in 1985, whereas the passport in question was issued on 3 March 1986. A document that did not exist at the time of the alleged offences could not have any bearing on their commission or investigation. The Court therefore held that the passport was not relevant or useful for the offences under inquiry, though it left it open to the petitioner to approach the trial court for its return.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to return of the passport, and retention by the investigating authorities was not justified under sections 34 and 38 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Ratio Decidendi: Documents or things may be seized or retained under the Act only if they are demonstrably relevant to, or useful for, the investigation or proceeding, and a document created after the alleged offence cannot be treated as such material for that offence.

---