Amended retention period for seized currency applies to pending cases, while valid appointment supports jurisdiction to issue notice.

An amendment reducing the retention period for seized currency under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act was treated as procedural and applicable to pending seizures, absent any saving provision preserving the earlier period. The amended provision's extension mechanism did not prevent its operation, and Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act did not apply because the case was not one of repeal. The petitioner was therefore entitled to return of the seized currency on this issue. The Special Director's appointment under the statutory notification was also held valid, and the officer had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice; the de facto doctrine further supported the notice.

---

---

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 the seizure made before the amendment and obliged return of the currency, and (ii) whether the Special Director had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Issue (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 the seizure made before the amendment and obliged return of the currency.

Analysis: The reduced period for retaining seized currency was treated as a matter of limitation and procedure, not as a vested substantive right. A shortening of the period of retention operates on pending situations unless the statute contains a saving provision to protect accrued rights. The amended provision itself contained a safeguard enabling extension of the six-month period by the Director of Enforcement for recorded reasons, and no such extension had been obtained in the case. Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 did not assist the respondents because the case was not one of repeal. The amendment was therefore applicable.

Conclusion: The amended Section 41 applied, and the petitioner was entitled to return of the seized currency; this issue was decided in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the Special Director had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973.

Analysis: Section 4(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 empowered the Central Government to appoint any person as an officer of enforcement, and the relevant notification specifically appointed the Special Director and conferred adjudicatory powers. The challenge based on the structure of Section 3 and Section 4 did not establish invalidity of the appointment or lack of authority. The acts of the officer were also supportable on the de facto doctrine.

Conclusion: The Special Director had jurisdiction to issue the show-cause notice; this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition seeking return of the seized currency succeeded, but the challenge to the show-cause notice failed, leaving the matter only partly in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: An amendment shortening a statutory retention or limitation period is procedural and may apply to existing situations unless the statute preserves the earlier right, and an officer validly appointed under the empowering statute and notification can issue the notice, with the de facto doctrine additionally supporting the validity of the act.

---