DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT versus ASHOK KUMAR JAIN AND VICE VERSA

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 57 · Decided: 08-01-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT 
v. 
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 
AND 
VICE VERSA 
JANUARY 8, 1998 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE, S.P. KURDUKAR AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.) 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973: 
A 
B 
c 
FERA violations-By a person with deterioration health-Custodial 
interrogation of-High Court imposed conditions that the Enforcement 
Directorate should approach Director, Al/MS to· constitute a Board of 
Cardiologists and in case Board found custodial interrogation not feasible, 
Directorate should interrogate such a person under the care of doctors at D 
Al!MS__:_Held: Modality stipulated by the Court for conducting such 
interrogation improper-Further, in such a case the authorities should be 
given freedom to chalk out necessary measures to protect the health of such 
a person.· 
Section 41---Seized documents-Retention of-Time limit for-Exten E 
sion by Supreme Court Documents seized from premises of accused-Repeated 
summons issued to accused but instead _of appearing he moved Sessions 
Court for anticipatory bail-By the time the matter of anticipatory bail came 
up before Supreme Court extended time limit for retention of documents 
expired-Consequently Enforcement Directorate disabled to use seized F 
documents for questioning persons concerned resulting in futile interrogation 
of appellant-Held : Jn the circumstances of the case, as there was no lapse 
on the part of the officers of Directorate statutory time limit extended for a 
further period of six months in public interest by Supreme Court-Constitution 
of India, 1950, Art. 142. 
Section 41---Seized documents-Retention of-Time limit for-Extension 
of-With consent of person from whose premises documents were seized 
Question left open. 
G 
The officials of the Enforcement D:rcctorate under the Foreign 
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) conducted a raid in the residential H 
57 
58 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 
A premises of the respondent and seized certain documents considered useful 
for unearthing large scale FERA violations Repeated Summons were issued 
r -. 
to the respondent to appear before the Directorate for interrogation but 
instead of appearing the respondent moved the Sessions Court for anticipatory 
bail. In the application for anticipatory .bail the respondent highlighted his 
B deteriorating health as the main ground for granting him bail. However, the 
Sessions Court dismissed the application. 
The respondent moved the High Court challenging the aforementioned 
order. The High Court imposed a condition that the Enforcement Directorate 
should approach the Director, AHMS to constitute a Board of Cardiologists 
C to examine the respondent and in case the Board found custodial interrogation 
was not feasible, the officials should interrogate the respondent under the 
care of doctors at the AIIMS. Studded with such conditions the High Court 
modified the order of the Sessions Court. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that conditions imposed by 
D the High Court would render the interrogation ineffective and uufruitful; 
that since extended time limit under Section 41 of FERA for retaining the 
seized documents had expired, interrogation of the respondent would become 
completely futile if the Directorate was disabled to use the seized documents 
for questioning the persons concerned because the respondent did not avail 
E 
F 
himself for effective interrogation during the said period of retention of the 
seized documents. 
On behalf of the respondent it was contended that respondent ,would not 
ask for the retu~n of the said seized documents even after expiry of the time 
limit. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. No doubt investigating officials of the Enforcement Directorate 
are duty bound to bear in mind that the respondent has put forth a case of 
delicate health conditions. They cannot overlook it and they have to safeguard 
G his health while he is in their custody. But to say that interrogation should 
be subject to the opinion of the Cardiologists of the AIIMS and that the 
officials of the Directorate should approach the Director of AITMS to constitute · 
a Board of Cardiologists to examine the respondent etc. Would considerably 
impair the efficient functioning of the investigating authorities ·under the 
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The authorities should 
H have been given freedom to chalk out such measures as are necessary to 
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT v. A.K. JAIN [THOMAS, J.]

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.