Court custody of seized currency notes may be handed to enforcement authorities, but document-production powers cannot stretch that far.

Section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 could not be used to require production of currency notes kept in court custody because the power was confined to information, books or other documents, and the order was not issued by the Central Government or the Reserve Bank. Currency notes were not documents for that provision, and the inclusive definition in section 19-A(7) did not extend to it. However, where currency notes had been seized by police on suspicion of an offence and produced before a Magistrate, section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code allowed delivery to the Enforcement Officer for investigation. The revision therefore failed, as the delivery order was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 authorized the Enforcement Directorate to require the production of currency notes kept in court custody and whether currency notes were documents within that provision; (ii) whether the Magistrate could hand over the seized currency notes to the Enforcement Officer under section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issue (i): whether section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 authorized the Enforcement Directorate to require the production of currency notes kept in court custody and whether currency notes were documents within that provision.

Analysis: Section 19(2) empowered only the Central Government or the Reserve Bank to require the production of information, books or other documents by order in writing. The order in question was issued by an Assistant Director and not by either of those authorities. The provision was intended to secure information or documents for examination from a person in possession of them, and not to obtain from court custody currency notes seized by police for investigation. Currency notes were not documents for the purposes of section 19(2); the special inclusive definition in section 19-A(7) applied only to the sections there mentioned and did not extend to section 19(2).

Conclusion: The invocation of section 19(2) failed, and currency notes could not be treated as documents within that provision.

Issue (ii): whether the Magistrate could hand over the seized currency notes to the Enforcement Officer under section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: Section 523 applied to property seized by police under circumstances creating suspicion of an offence and produced before a Magistrate. The currency notes were seized on such suspicion and were not required for any lawful purpose of the court. Since officers of Enforcement were competent to seize and retain such property for investigation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, it would be an empty formality to return the notes to the petitioner only to have them seized again immediately. The Magistrate was therefore entitled to direct delivery of the notes to the Enforcement Officer.

Conclusion: The order delivering the currency notes to the Enforcement Officer was valid.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed because the impugned delivery order was supportable under the Criminal Procedure Code even though section 19(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 was inapplicable.

Ratio Decidendi: Where property seized by police and produced before court is lawfully liable to seizure by a statutory enforcement authority, the Magistrate may direct delivery to that authority under section 523 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and a special provision for calling for documents cannot be stretched to obtain such property from court custody.

---