Procedural amendment to seizure retention period applied to pending matters, and a specially notified enforcement officer could issue notice.

An amendment shortening the retention period for seized currency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as procedural and applied to pending matters. Because no written extension of the retention period had been obtained, the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized currency, and the mandamus petition succeeded. The challenge to the Special Director's competence to issue the show-cause notice failed because the notification expressly appointed him as an Officer of Enforcement with authority under the Act. The notice was therefore not without jurisdiction, and the related writ petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the amended section 41 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, reducing the period for retention of seized currency from one year to six months, applied to a seizure made before the amendment and entitled the petitioner to return of the currency. (ii) Whether the Special Director was lawfully empowered to issue the impugned show-cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (i): The amended provision shortened the period for retention of seized documents and was treated as governing pending situations because the change was procedural in character. The amendment also contained a proviso enabling extension of the retention period for reasons recorded in writing by the Director of Enforcement, and no such extension had been obtained in the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner was entitled to the return of the seized currency, and the writ seeking mandamus succeeded.

Issue (ii): The challenge to the competence of the Special Director failed because the notification specifically appointed him as an Officer of Enforcement with authority under the Act, and the Court held that the impugned notice was not without jurisdiction. The objection based on section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897, was also rejected.

Conclusion: The show-cause notice was valid and the writ challenging it was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: One writ petition succeeded on the question of retention of the seized currency, while the connected writ petition failed on the jurisdictional challenge to the show-cause notice.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment shortening a period of retention or limitation is ordinarily procedural and applies to pending matters unless a contrary saving provision requires a different result; a specially notified officer appointed under the Act may validly exercise the conferred enforcement power.

---