1. 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 appeal is whether refusal on the part of a person, who is summoned under S.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 the S.56 of the Act? The High Court by the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that the provisions of S.56 of the Act will not get attracted for violations of the directions under S.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 Act and the Act itself having made