Writ against ED summons under S.37 FEMA and S.131 ITA fails; S.160 CrPC protection inapplicable

HC dismissed the writ petition challenging summons issued by ED to a woman under S.37 FEMA read with S.131 ITA. The Court held that powers under S.37 FEMA are analogous to those under S.131 ITA, relating to discovery, attendance and production of documents, and are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, not by Cr.P.C. safeguards under S.160. Distinguishing these from search and seizure powers under S.132 ITA, the Court ruled that the exemption in S.160 Cr.P.C. for women's appearance at a police station is inapplicable. The petitioner's insistence on exemption from personal appearance was rejected.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1.1 Whether summons issued under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, read with Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, requiring personal appearance of a woman before the Enforcement Directorate are governed by Section 160(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1.2 What is the nature and scope of powers exercised under Section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, particularly in relation to discovery, production of evidence and recording of statement, and whether such summons can be questioned at the stage of preliminary investigation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Applicability of Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. to summons under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.1 The Court examined Section 4(2) Cr.P.C., which makes the Code applicable to investigation, inquiry and trial of offences under other laws unless a special enactment prescribes a distinct procedure.

2.2 Section 37 FEMA (Chapter VI - "Directorate of Enforcement") empowers specified Enforcement Officers to exercise "like powers" as conferred on Income-tax authorities under the Income-tax Act, 1961, subject to the limitations in that Act.

2.3 Section 131 IT Act confers on Income-tax authorities powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in respect of discovery, inspection, enforcing attendance (including examination on oath), compelling production of books/documents, and issuing commissions.

2.4 Section 132(13) IT Act provides that provisions of the Cr.P.C. relating to search and seizure apply, so far as may be, to searches and seizures under Section 132.

2.5 Section 37 FEMA is headed "Power of search, seizure, etc." and by sub-section (3) incorporates "like powers" of Income-tax authorities along with the limitations under the Income-tax Act.

2.6 Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. contains territorial and gender-related safeguards regarding attendance of witnesses before police, including that no woman shall be required to attend any place other than the place where she resides.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.7 The Court distinguished between two sets of powers under the Income-tax Act: (a) powers regarding discovery, inspection, enforcing attendance, production of documents etc. under Section 131 IT Act, which are expressly equated to powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure; and (b) powers of search and seizure under Section 132 IT Act, to which Cr.P.C. provisions on search and seizure apply by virtue of Section 132(13).

2.8 On a combined reading of Sections 131 and 132 IT Act, the Court held that: (i) discovery, production of evidence and enforcement of attendance for examination on oath are governed by the Civil Procedure Code; and (ii) search and seizure operations are governed by the Criminal Procedure Code.

2.9 Analysing Section 37 FEMA, the Court noted that although it is titled "Power of search, seizure, etc.", unlike the Income-tax Act it does not separately codify powers of discovery/attendance and search/seizure in distinct provisions. The expression "etc." in Section 37 FEMA was treated as material, indicating that the section covers both: (a) powers analogous to discovery/attendance under Section 131 IT Act; and (b) powers of search and seizure analogous to Section 132 IT Act.

2.10 On that basis, the Court held that when the Enforcement Directorate invokes Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act for issuing summons to secure attendance and production of documents, it exercises powers of a civil court governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, not investigative powers governed by the Cr.P.C.

2.11 Consequently, the Cr.P.C. safeguards relating to attendance of witnesses, including those under Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. regarding women not being required to attend anywhere except where they reside, were held inapplicable to summons issued for discovery/production of evidence under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act.

2.12 The Court distinguished the reliance placed by the Respondent on the Supreme Court decision concerning Section 50 PMLA (Abhishek Banerjee), noting that: (i) PMLA proceedings are criminal in nature, dealing with the offence of money laundering and criminal prosecution; (ii) Section 50 PMLA confers criminal investigative powers and the Supreme Court held that its scheme displaces certain Cr.P.C. safeguards; whereas (iii) Section 37 FEMA operates in a civil-regulatory framework, dealing with contraventions resulting in penalties and adjudication, not criminal offences.

2.13 By the same reasoning, the Court rejected the Petitioner's attempt to import Section 160 Cr.P.C. into FEMA investigations via Section 4(2) Cr.P.C., holding that the special scheme under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act already prescribes the governing procedural framework (CPC for discovery/attendance), leaving no room for Section 160 Cr.P.C. to operate.

Conclusions

2.14 Summons issued under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act, requiring personal appearance and production of documents, are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure as "powers regarding discovery, production of evidence, etc." and not by the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2.15 Section 160(1) Cr.P.C. does not apply to such summons, and a woman summoned under Section 37 FEMA cannot claim exemption from personal appearance at the Enforcement Directorate office on the basis of that provision.

2.16 The Petitioner's insistence that her statement be recorded only at her residence, based on Section 160 Cr.P.C., was found to be without legal foundation.

Issue 2: Nature of Section 37 FEMA proceedings and validity of questioning summons at preliminary investigation stage

Legal framework (as discussed)

2.17 The Court considered the statutory scheme of FEMA, including that FERA, 1973 has been repealed and replaced by FEMA, and that FEMA provides for adjudication of "contraventions" and imposition of penalties, with an appellate structure (Special Director and Appellate Tribunal) and compounding of contraventions under Section 15 FEMA.

2.18 Reference was made to decisions analysing FEMA and related provisions:

(a) K.A. Mansoor v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, where it was held that summons under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act are part of preliminary investigation and do not affect substantive rights; the concept of "offence" under FERA has been replaced in FEMA by "contravention" leading to penalty.

(b) Avinash Bhosale v. Union of India, where the Bombay High Court held that powers under Section 131 IT Act are no greater than those of a civil court, governed by CPC (Section 30 and Order XI) concerning discovery and production.

(c) P. Giribabu v. Deputy Director of Enforcement, where it was observed that at the preliminary investigation stage under FEMA, the authorities are only collecting material and do not act as a court or treat the person definitively as an accused or witness; assistance of counsel at that preliminary stage was held not necessary.

(d) V. Datchinamurthy v. Assistant Director of Inspection, where the Madras High Court held that Income-tax authorities' powers for gathering information and summoning witnesses are co-extensive with those of a civil court under the CPC.

Interpretation and reasoning

2.19 The Court accepted the characterisation of FEMA as a civil-regulatory statute where the concept of "offence" under FERA has been replaced by "contravention" attracting penalty, determined by an Adjudicating Authority with appellate remedies and provision for compounding.

2.20 In that context, the Court endorsed the reasoning that issuance of summons under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act is a step in preliminary inquiry/investigation for collection of documents and information and, by itself, does not directly affect or infringe the substantive rights of the noticee.

2.21 The Court noted that the summons in the present case were issued "for the production of evidence and recording of a statement to trace the source of funds utilized for acquiring foreign assets" under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act, which by its very terms imports the civil-court type powers under CPC.

2.22 Since such summons are rooted in powers analogous to Section 131 IT Act, their validity is to be examined in light of that civil-procedural framework. The Court found nothing in FEMA or the incorporated ITA provisions that would condition or restrict the place of appearance in a manner claimed by the Petitioner, nor anything that would render such preliminary summons invalid on the grounds advanced.

2.23 The Court thus aligned with the view that it is "unthinkable to question the summons issued by the ED under Section 37 of FEMA" at the preliminary investigative stage merely on the basis of procedural objections as to place of appearance, when the statute expressly authorises discovery, attendance and production of documents.

Conclusions

2.24 Proceedings under FEMA are essentially civil-adjudicatory concerning contraventions and penalties, and Section 37 FEMA empowers the Enforcement Directorate to conduct preliminary inquiry/investigation through summons for attendance and production of documents.

2.25 Summons under Section 37 FEMA read with Section 131 IT Act, issued for ascertaining the source of funds and foreign assets, constitute a lawful exercise of investigative powers and are not rendered invalid by the Petitioner's objections based on Cr.P.C. safeguards.

2.26 There is no statutory requirement under FEMA or the incorporated ITA/CPC framework compelling the Enforcement Directorate to record a woman's statement only at her residence, and the insistence on personal appearance at the Enforcement Directorate office is legally sustainable.

2.27 On the above reasoning, the Court found no merit in the challenge to the summons and dismissed the writ petition.

---