Validity of FERA summons upheld where officer showed necessity and called for specific documents tied to the inquiry.

A summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is valid where the enforcement officer considers the attendance and production of documents necessary for the inquiry. The Court held that the summons need not disclose the full nature of the investigation if that would jeopardise the inquiry, and the wording itself can show due application of mind. It also found no vagueness or lack of nexus where the summons specifically required the petitioner to produce his passport, bank passbooks and property details. As the petitioner was not an accused, he could not rely on Article 21 or Section 24 of the Evidence Act to invalidate the summons.

---

---

Issues: Whether a summons issued under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 was invalid for want of particulars about the investigation, absence of proper application of mind, and alleged lack of nexus between the documents called for and the inquiry.

Analysis: Section 40 empowers a gazetted officer of enforcement to summon any person whose attendance is considered necessary to give evidence or produce documents during an investigation or proceeding under the Act. The summons in question specifically required the petitioner to attend and produce his passport, bank passbooks and property details. The Court held that the statutory power extends to summoning "any person" and does not require disclosure in the summons itself of the precise nature of the investigation, particularly where doing so may frustrate the inquiry. It further held that the use of the words indicating the officer's consideration of necessity showed due application of mind, and that the documents demanded were sufficiently specific and were directly referable to the petitioner, so the summons could not be treated as vague or without nexus. The petitioner, not being an accused, could not invoke Article 21 or Section 24 of the Evidence Act to invalidate the summons.

Conclusion: The summons was upheld as valid and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 is valid if it specifies the documents required and reflects the officer's satisfaction of necessity; it is not invalid merely because it does not disclose the full nature of the investigation or because the summons is challenged on grounds of vagueness or absence of nexus, where the person summoned is not an accused.

---