The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Deputy Director of the Enforcement Directorate is competent to authorize seizure of documents for probable proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the Enforcement Officer is entitled to move the Sub Magistrate to deliver the documents to him for further investigation.

1. On March 12,1966, the Sub Inspector of Police at Chengannur found the petitioner in Crl. R. P. No. 211 of 1966 travelling in a taxi with Rs. 25,000 odd in currency notes and certain documents of strange contents. As he could not account for his possessions, the Sub Inspector suspected some sharp practice and therefore seized the documents the term documents in this judgment includes currency notes and arrested the accused. On information obtained from him, the Circle Inspector, Chengannur, went to the house of the petitioner in Crl. R. P. 236 of 1966 and recovered another sum of Rs. 11, 000 in currency cotes the same day. All the documents thus seized were sent to the Court of the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur. After investigation, the Police reported to the Magistrate that no crime cognizable by them could be

detected and that they suspected the accused to be a member of an international gang engaged in violations of the Foreign Exchange laws. The petitioners herein moved for return of the documents seized from them respectively. On information passed by the Police, the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Cochin, intervened in the proceedings before the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur, and moved for delivery to him of some of the documents (inclusive of all the currency notes) kept in the custody of the Court; and the Sub Magistrate has allowed the same, repelling the counter motions by the petitioners. The petitioners challenge those orders in these petitions for revision thereof.

2. In his application, the Enforcement Officer made clear that the documents sought were "to facilitate investigation under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947." Along with the application he produced in Court a letter dated April 7,1966, of the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Madras, which reads thus:

"The Central Government hereby authorise Sri. M. P. Gopinathan, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue and Insurance, Government of India, Cochin, to make a representation to the Sub Magistrate, Chengannur, and to receive certain documents relevant to the enquiry in respect of Crime No. 46 of 1966 of Chengannur Police Station for further investigation under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (VII of 1947)".

3. S.19D of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947-1964 hereinafter 'the Act', for short reads:

"If an officer of Enforcement, not below the rank of Assistant Director of Enforcement has reason to believe that any documents which in his opinion will be useful for or relevant to any proceeding under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorise any officer of Enforcement to search for and seize .... such documents."

Sub-section (7) of S.19A of the Act defines that "in S.19C to 19G, the expression 'document' includes Indian currency, foreign exchange and books of account".

4. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the Enforcement Officer, submitted that the above said letter of the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, is an authority issued to the Enforcement Officer, Cochin, to search for and seize the documents in question under S.19D of the Act. That the Deputy Director is above the rank of an Assistant Director of Enforcement mentioned in S.19D is conceded on all hands. Contention of counsel for petitioners is that the said letter is invalid in law because it is not in conformity with S.19D of the Act. What is contemplated by S.19D is an empowerment by the Officer himself; but the letter in question purports to be an authorisation by the Central Government, acting through the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Madras. I am afraid that this formal defect would not invalidate, much less nullify, the authority conferred by the letter. In Hukum Chd Malhotra v. Union of India AIR. 1959 S. C. 536 it has been observed:

"Mr. Chatterjee referred to certain mistakes of reference in the order of the President dated October 1. 1954