The Magistrate issuing a search warrant under Section 19(3) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 does not have control over the disposal of the articles seized in execution of the warrant, and the Director of Enforcement has the right to retain the articles seized in accordance with the provisions of Section 19-A.

Judgment

RAGHUBAR DAYAL, J. : This appeal, on certificate granted by the Calcutta High Court, is directed against an order of the High Court, dated June 20, 1960 reversing the Order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate directing return of certain documents to the respondent, and has arisen in the following circumstances :

2. On April 6, 1959, the Chief Presidency Magistrate, Calcutta, ordered the issue of search warrants on the application of the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, under sub-s. (3) of S. 19 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (Act VII of 1947). The search warrant was issued on May 6, 1959. It required the production of documents seized, before the Magistrate. In execution of the search warrant, a number of documents were seized from the possession of the respondent on May 14, 1959. The Enforcement Officer reported that day that a certain room could not be searched and therefore further action on the search warrant was to be taken. He also noted in his application, for the Chief Presidency Magistrate s information :

"that the seized documents as per enclosed Seizure Memo have been kept with us for scrutiny and those will be retained till the completion of the enquiry or the adjudication proceedings as the case may be and a report will be submitted to Your Honour thereafter."

3. On May 28, 1959, the Enforcement Officer applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for permission for the retention of the seized documents for a period of two months for the submission of further report in the matter. The Chief Presidency Magistrate granted the necessary permission. Similar permission was again granted on applications, by the Chief Presidency Magistrate, on July 28 and September 28, 1959.

4. On October 5, 1959, the respondent applied to the Chief Presidency Magistrate for in order of return of the said documents as the statutory period of 4 months during which the Director of Enforcement could keep the documents had expired, and no proceedings had been commenced against him under S. 23 of the Act. The claim for the return of the documents was based on the provisions of S.19-A. On October 20, 1959 the Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered the return of the seized files to the respondent. He, however, modified this order the same day, when his attention was drawn to his earlier order dated September 28, 1959 permitting the Enforcement Officer to retain the documents till November 28, 1959. He directed the matter to be heard on October 26, 1959 and on that day, in view of the Investigating Officer being on leave, adjourned the matter for decision to November 10, 1959.

5. In his application presented on November 10, 1959 the Enforcement Officer stated that the Director of Enforcement had started adjudication proceedings against the respondent for alleged violation of S. 4(1) of the Act and had issued notice to him to show cause and that in connection with the adjudication proceedings seized files items Nos. 2 and 7 of the Seizure Memo would be required and that he had no objection to the return of the remaining seized files though they might have some distant bearings on those proceedings.

6. The Chief Presidency Magistrate ordered, on November 10, 1959 the return of all the documents except those mentioned at items 2 and 7 of the search list. The respondent went up in revision against this order for the continued retention of the two documents and the High Court allowed the revision and ordered the return of these documents also to the respondent. It is against this order that this appeal has been filed.

7. We may first refer to the relevant provisions of Ss. 19 and 19-A of the Act; and later to certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter called the Code, to appreciate the contentions for the parties.

"19 (1) The Central Government may, at any time by notification in the Official Gazette direct owners, subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be specified in the notificat