STATE. BY NILRATAN SIRCAR, ENFORCEMENT versus LAF91HMI NARAIN RAM NIWAS

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 724 · Decided: 14-04-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
April J4 
724 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[196i} 
STATE. BY NILRATAN SIRCAR, ENFORCEMENT 
OFFICER 
v. 
LAf91HMI NARAIN RAM NIWAS 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND RAGBUBAll DAYAL, JJ.) 
Criminal Trial-Doculnents seized-Period JJTOVided by 
statute for retention of seized documents-Whether can be ex-
tended by Magistrate-Power of Magistrate in respect of reten-
tion of documents-Seizure made under special Act-Prot!isioas 
of Code relating to search whether applicable-Foreign E:l:-
change Regulation Act, 1947, sub-«. (3) of s. 19, s. 19-A-Code of; 
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898), ss. 5(2), 96, 98. 101, 
102, 103. 
On May 14, 1959, a number of documents were seized from 
the possession of the respondent by the Enforcement Officer 
in execution of a search warrant. The search warrant was 
issued by the Chief Presidency Magistrate under sub-s. (3) of 
s. 19 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Dire<>-
tor of Enforcement with the permission of the Chief Presidency 
Magistrate retained those seized documents far a period ex-
ceeding four months. On October 5, 1959, the respondent filed 
an application before the Chief Presidency Magistrate in which 
he claimed the return of the seized documents on the basis of 
the provision of s. 19-A of the Foreign Exchange ReguJation 
Act. On this applic.:tion the Chief Presidency Magistrate direct-
ed the return of all the documents to the respondent except 
those mentioned at items 2 and 7 of the search list. The res-
pondent went up in revision against this order for the continu-
ed retention of the two documents, and the High Court allowed 
the revision and ordered the return of these documents also 
to the respondent. Against this order appeal ·was filed in this 
Court. 
Held': (i) The Magistrate has no jurisdiction over the arti-
cles seized in execution of the search warrant issued under 
s. 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and that he 
cannot permit the retention of such documents by the Director 
of· Enforcement after the expiry of the period he is entitiE<l 
to keep them in accordance with the provisions of s. 19-A 0£ 
the Act. The Enforcement Officer has a right under s. 19-A to 
retain the articles seized for a period not exceeding four months 
and it is not necessary for him to obtain permission from the 
Magistrate for retaining the seized documents within the stlF-
tutory period. Therefore, the Magistrate issuing the ·search 
warrant has nothing to do with the retention or disJ>osal of 
the documents seized in execution of the search warrant either 
during the statutory period of four months or after the expiry 
of that period. 
· 
Mohammad Serajuddin v. R. C. Mishm, 
(1962] 
1 Supp. 
S.C.R. 545, distinguished. 
(ii) In view of the specific provision for the issue of a 
search warrant under sub-s. (3) of s. 19 of the Foreign Exchange 
Regulation Act, the provisions of ss. 96, 98 and Form No. 8 of 
Schedule V of the Code would not be applicable to the search 
warrants issued under sub-s. (3) of s. 19. The provisions of ss. 
101, 102, 103 of the Code will apply to searches under sub-s. (3) 
of s. 19 of the Act as there is no specific provision in the Act 
with respect to the conduct of the search. 
'7 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
72!> 
{iii) The provisions of s. 5(2) of the Code will not apply 
1964 
to an investigation conducted under the Act because the Act is , 
. 
a special Acll and it provides under s.19-A for the necessary in-
~tale, by N•lratan 
vestigation into the alleged suspected commission of an offence Si rear' 0;":{orcemtnl 
under the Act, by the DirectOr of Enforcement. , 
v. r 
(iv) No express provision is necessary in the statute for the 
return of documents after the expiry of the statutory period. 
Provisions .are necessary for retaining documents of others and 
not for returning them to persons entitled. Therefore the docu· 
ments seized have to be returned to the person from whose 
possession they had been seized after the expiry of the statu-
tory period. 
(v) Under s.19-A of the Act the Director of Enforcement 
can justifiably retain with himself the documents seized till 
the final disposal of the proceedings taken under s.23 of the 
Act if the proceedings had commenced before the period of 
four months, during which he could keep the documents. In 
the present case he could not h1'.ve retained those documents 
beyond four months because no such p110ceeding had been 
commenced within 4 months. 
In the present case proceeding

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