Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether a person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 can be required to give a statement in writing and sign it, and whether the caution administered by the authority amounts to compulsion.
Analysis: A person summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 may lawfully be called upon to give a written statement and sign it, and such a course is neither prohibited by the statute nor by the Constitution. There is no presumption that such a statement is involuntary. The Court found no material on record to show that any compulsion was exercised. It also held that cautioning the person summoned that making an untruthful statement would be an offence is supported by section 40(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and cannot be treated as pressure to extract a statement, particularly in view of section 40(4) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.
Conclusion: The challenge to the summons and recording of written statements failed; the requirement to give a written statement and sign it was held permissible, and the allegation of compulsion was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: A person validly summoned under section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 may be required to furnish and sign a written statement, and statutory caution regarding truthfulness does not by itself amount to compulsion unless actual coercion is shown.