Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
C. SAMPATH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MADRAS
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/09/1997
BENCH:
A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASAMI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Present:
Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand
Hon’ble Mr. justice K. Venkataswami
S.S. Ray, T.S. Arunachalam, K.T.S. Tulsi, S.B. Wad,
Sr. Advs., Jinasenan, N. Jothi, K.K. Mani, K.V.
Vishwanathan, Vikas Pahwa, K.V. Vijayakumar, S.N. Bhat,
Manoj Wad, V.K. Verma, Advs., with them for the appearing
parties.
O R D E R
The following order of the Court was delivered.
Leave Grated,
This appeal is directed against the judgement and order
of the High Court dated 28th March, 1996 in writ Appeal
no.329 of 1996.
Summons were issued by the respondent to appellant
under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act,
1973 (hereinafter called as FERA) to appear before him on
the fixed date. After putting in certain conditions for his
appearance, the appellant appeared before the respondent on
15th May, 1996 when his statement was recorded. His
statements were also recorded on 9th July, 1996 and July
12th. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court
challenging the issuance of summons to him and in the writ
petition precise grievance made was that the appellant
cannot be "compelled" to give his statement in writing in
connection with an offence under FERA. A learned Single
Judge of the High Court after detailed discussion dismissed
the writ petition. The appellant took the matter in a writ
appeal by a detailed order, was dismissed at the stage of
admission itself. By special leave, this appeal has been
filed in this court.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is not denied that the statement of the appellant
have been recorded by the respondent on 15th May, 1996, 9th
July, 1996. Learned counsel for the appellant did not
dispute and rightly so that a person to whom summons are
issued under section 40 of FERA may be called upon to give
his statement in writing and sign it and a such a corse is
not prohibited either by the statute or the constitution.
In our opinion there is no presumption that such a statement
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
is always "involuntary. In Amba Lal vs. Union Of India and
others: AIR 1961 Sc 264 a constitution Bench of this court
opined that such a course was desirable and observed that
the giving of the Statement in writing under the signature
of the maker safeguards the interest of the maker as well as
the department and the interest of the maker as well as the
department and eliminates the possibility of making a
complaint subsequently that the statement was not correctly
recorded by the authorities. What has, however, been urged
before us is that he cannot be "compelled’ to give such a
statement. Apart from the assertion of the appellant in the
court that the statements are "extracted" under
"compulsion" Which fact has been denied by the respondents,
there is no other material placed on the record from which
we may assume any element of "compulsion" being exercised as
alleged by the appellant.
Despite our giving opportunities to the appellant to
file copies of those statements in this court to satisfy
ourselves whether there was any element of "compulsion"
visible from those statements, copies of those statements
have been withheld for reasons best known to the appellant.
As a matter of fact copies of those statements ought to have
been filed with the special leave petition itself. It is,
therefore, not possible for us to was some that any
"compulsion" was exercised by the respondent to force the
appellant to give his statements in writing. Administration
of caution to the person summoned under Section 40 of FERA
that not making a truthful statement would be an offence
cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed as use of
"pressure" to "extract" the statement. Administration of
such a caution, which has the statutory backing of Section
40(3) of FERA itself, is in effect in the interest of the
person who is making the statement in view of the provisions
of Section 40(4) of FERA.
Thus, for what we have said above and for the reasons
given by the high Court, we find no merit in this appeal.
This appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. The
interim direction shall stand vacated. The appellant shall
pay Rs.5,000/- as costs.