TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the Magistrate issuing a search warrant under section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 had jurisdiction to control the custody or retention of documents seized in execution of that warrant; (ii) Whether the Director of Enforcement could retain the seized documents beyond the period prescribed by section 19-A and till the completion of proceedings under section 23.
Issue (i): Whether the Magistrate issuing a search warrant under section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 had jurisdiction to control the custody or retention of documents seized in execution of that warrant.
Analysis: The special procedure under section 19(3) governed the issue and execution of the warrant, while the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure applied only so far as they were applicable to the conduct of searches. The general powers of a Magistrate under the Code regarding disposal of property seized under a warrant did not extend to documents seized under the special statutory warrant. The custody and retention of such documents were dealt with separately by section 19-A, and not by the Magistrate issuing the warrant.
Conclusion: The Magistrate had no jurisdiction to permit or control retention of the seized documents after the period allowed by section 19-A.
Issue (ii): Whether the Director of Enforcement could retain the seized documents beyond the period prescribed by section 19-A and till the completion of proceedings under section 23.
Analysis: Section 19-A authorised retention of seized documents for not more than four months, or, if proceedings under section 23 were commenced within that period, until the disposal of those proceedings, including appellate proceedings if any. Since proceedings under section 23 had commenced, the statutory object of section 19-A was to permit retention until final disposal of those proceedings. The High Court's direction for immediate return of the two documents would have defeated that object in the circumstances of the case.
Conclusion: The Director of Enforcement could retain the documents mentioned in items 2 and 7 until the final disposal of the proceedings commenced under section 23.
Final Conclusion: The special statutory scheme displaced the Magistrate's control over the seized documents, and the retention of the specified documents by the Director of Enforcement was upheld until the proceedings under the Act concluded.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a special enactment provides a complete code for search and post-seizure retention of documents, the general procedural powers of the Magistrate do not govern custody or return of the seized documents, and statutory retention may continue in accordance with the special provision when proceedings are commenced within the prescribed period.
TaxTMI 
