Judgment

Pattanaik, J.—All these appeals are directed against a common judgment of a learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court and a common question of law arises and as such they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The question for consideration in all these appeals is whether refusal on the part of a person, who is summoned under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) to comply with the directions under the summons, would attract the provisions of Section 56 of the Act? The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the provi­sions of Section 56 of the Act will not get attracted for viola­tions of the dirrections under Section 40 of the Act and, accord­ingly, the complaints filed for such violation and cognizance taken in the complaint cases have been quashed.

2. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, the learned Additional solicitor General, contended that the power having been conferred on the officers of the Enforcement Directorate to summon any person, whose attend­ance is necessary, either to give evidence or to produce a docu­ment, in course of any investigation or proceeding under the