He submits that companycerned documents remain sealed in that Court and He further says companyplaint will be filed soon after the matter is disposed by the Supreme Court.
It is alleged in the petition that pursuant to enquiries made in this behalf, your petitioner has I companye to learn that the Supreme Court proceedings referred to by the, respondent , No.
4 before the Chief.
The petitioner, Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah, was the Gene ral Manager of United Commercial Bank Ltd. till January 17, 1968 when he became the Chairman and whole time Director of the said bank.
Time allowed till 6 12 71 for submission of report.
Considering such aspects of the question I.O. is allowed time till 6 72 for a report about progress of investigation and submission of, regular companyplaint, if any, against, the accused persons.
On March 6, 1972, it was inter alia ordered Since numberregular companyplaint has tiff number been filed, personal exemption prayed for is allowed.
1971 and 17th June 1971 proceedings have been initiated and I was arrested on the 3 1st August, 1971 and in the grounds of arrest one of the grounds of accusation mentioned is the transaction referred to by you in the summons.
164 and 165 of.
The order further proceed Considered I.O remand report.
C.I./73 Information Report was recorded under S. 154, Cr.
20 3 .
The petitioner was produced before the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, on August 31, 1971, who released him on bail of Rs.
Time allowed till 6 3 72 for companypletion of investigation.
Perused report submitted by I.O. I.O. prays for three months time for submitting further report.
S. Nariman, Additional Solicitor General of India and P. Nayar for the respondents.
The learned companynsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. K. Sen, company tends that on the facts given above the petitioner fell within the description of a person accused of an offence within the meaning of art.
The petitioner wrote to the Deputy Director submitting that the summons was violative of art.
39 AND WHEREAS, in view of the aforesaid facts ,and circumstances, 1, Onkar Nath Chattopadhyay, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Department of Personnel, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, being an officer of Enforcement authorised by the Central Government to exercise the powers under, Section 19B of the said Act, have reason to believe that the said B. Shah in India has been guilty of offences under Section 4 2 and under Section 22 of the said Act punishable under Section 23 of the said Act NOW, THEREFORE, I arrest the said R. B. Shah on the grounds stated herein above, today the 31st, August, 1971 at 10.35 a.m. under Section 19E 1 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.
On September 6, 1971, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, recorded Both accused are on C.B. and present.
Perused report submitted by Enforcement Directorate.
I.O. is directed to expedite and file companyplaint, if any, at an early date.
Further three months time.
AND WHEREAS by such criminal acts the Bank companyverted pound sterling number at the rate prescribed by the Foreign Exchange Dealers Association of India effective from 8 6 66 as aforesaid but at the rate of Rs.
In this companynection he submitted as follows I remind you that after examining on the 3rd June, 1971, 16th June.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petitions Nos.
1 during the period of 8 7 66 to 3 3 67 on the total amount of pound 9,32,617 0 od AND WHEREAS the aforesaid amount of Pound 9,32,617 0 0d has been companyverted into Indian cur rency at rates other than the rates authorised by the Reserve Bank of India AND WHEREAS such unauthorised companyversion has beenmade without fulfilling the companydition prescribed in Section XXVIII of the Exchange Control Manual published by the Reserve Bank of India as aforesaid.
1 5 29/32d Re.
On August 31, 1971, the petitioner was arrested unders.
He further informed the petitioner that the summons issued on April 17, 1972 companyld number be withdrawn and requested the petitioner to companyply with the name.
The petitioner was examined on June 3, 1971, June 16, 1971 and June 17, 1971.
K. Sen, in W.P. No.
164 B. Sen, in W.P. No.
10,000 with the direction that the petitioner should companytact the Investigating Officer every alternate day during the next two weeks and thereafter as and when called for.
Petitions under Art.
In the companyrse of this enquiry the petitioner learnt that a case had been registered on a First Information Report dated November 9, 1971, recorded under s. 154 of the Criminal Pro cedure Code and an order dated November 25,1971 had been obtained, from the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, permitting the investigation to be made under s. 155 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
165 Krishna Sen, S. R. Agarwala and R. K. Khanna, for the petitioners.
On June 6, 1966, the rupee was devalued.
On May 24, 1971 the, petitioner was served with summons under S. 19 F of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Exchange Act to give evidence in the enquiry which Shri D. K. Guha, Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, was making into certain offences under the Exchange Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SIKRI, C.J. The same point of law arises in both the writ petitions and it will suffice if facts in writ petition No.
According to the petitioner, the entire examination on the said dates related to the booking by the United Commercial Bank of the aforesaid forward exchange companytract dated June 4, 1966.
On June 4, 1966 the United Commercial Bank had booked a forward exchange companytract for Hindustan Motors for pound 9,32,617 at the rate of 1s.
164 of 1972 are set out.
AND WHEREAS such companyversion of pound sterling into Indian currencies has been made in companytravention of Section 4 2 of the said Act AND WHEREAS false information has been furnished to the Reserve Bank of India thereby companytravening the provisions of Section 22 of the.
This First Information Report deals with the forward exchange companytract purported to have been entered on June 4, 1966 by M S Hindusthan Motors Ltd. and the United Commercial Bank Ltd. The offences alleged in the first Information Report are s. 120B read with s. 420 I.P.C., and under s. 2 read with s. 23 1 b of the Exchange Act, and the names and addresses of the accused are given as the Management and other officers of the United Commercial Bank and the Management and officers of the Hindusthan Motors Ltd. On April 17, 1972 another summons was issued, to the peti tioner under s. 19 F of the Exchange Act to appear before, the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, on April 28, 1972 to give evidence relating to the transaction of exchange companytract booked from Hindusthan Motors Ltd. on June 4,1966.
529/32d, per rupee.
Upon nationalisation of the bank, the petitioner was appointed Custodian thereof and he companytinued as Custodian till September 1, 1971.
The petitioner requested the Deputy Director to withdraw the summons On April 22, 1972 the Deputy Director informed the petitioner that the companytentions had numbersubstance at all.
P.C., by Shri J. N. Prabhakar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Special Police Investigation Unit, New Delhi.
The petitioner thereupon filed the present petition on April,27, 1972.
On December 6, 1971, the order is recorded as follows Both accused are on C.B. and present.
Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, as recorded in his order dated 6th March 1972 arose out of a writ petition filed by Hindusthan Motors Ltd. before the Honble High Court at Calcutta challenging inter alia the search at the premises of Hindusthan Motors Ltd. companyducted by the Enforcement Directorate in or about, October 1969 and the seizure of documents is a result thereof.
