Person summoned at the stage of investigation is not in a position of accused.

The petitioner has been served with a summons under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (Act 46 of 1973) by the respondent herein. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the said summons.

2.In the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that the respondent searched the premises and business place of a company known as "Super Duper T.V. Private Ltd." The petitioner's brother one Mr. Sudhakaran happened to be there and after the search he had been given summons purporting to be under Section 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter refer to as FERA Act). The said summons addressed the petitioner in his capacity as Director of Super Duper T.V. Private Ltd. The petitioner is not in any way connected with the said company nor he is its Director. The impugned summons is illegal and does not comply the mandatory requirement of Section 40 of the FERA Act. The summons have been issued to him as he happened to be the sister's son of Mrs. Sasikala, who is a close friend of Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. The political overtones of the issuance of summons to the petitioner is all too obvious. Without a shred of evidence of material the petitioner is put to serious prejudice and his personal liberty is in jeopardy. The summons must delineate however skeletal it may be of what the investigation pertains to or the proceedings under the Act, as the same is a condition precedent andsine quanonfor a valid summons. There is nothing in the summons to indicate in respect of what investigation or proceedings under the Act that the petitioner is sought to be summoned to appear before the respondent and answer questions or produce the documents and evidence. The proceedings and the subject matter of investigation is absolutely essential, to be furnished to the person summoned to appear. Unless the person concerned is informed of what he had been summoned to answer or the proceedings initiated are taken against him he cannot answer under Section 193 or 228, Indian Panel Code. Without a focused attention to a particular subject matter of investigation or proceedings under the Act, there is a grave risk that the petitioner may be exposing himself for being proceeded against, under Section 193 and 228 I.P.C. It is one of the basic reasons requiring the Section to specifyex facieon the summons itself the subject matter of investigation of the proceedings in which he sought to be examined. Since the basic requirement is lacking, the summons issued to the petitioner is invalid. Requiring the petitioner to appear before the Enforcement Authorities is a drastic power. A roving enquiry of the nature could make the exercise of power arbitrary and not one authorised by the Act. The very scheme of Section 40 of FERA Act and the basic guarantee under Section 24 of the Evidence Act and Article 21 of the Constitution of India would stand violated, if a summon issued without specifying on what subject matter he is put question or directed to produce the documents. It is the requirement of law that reasons must exist for any action which are taken against a person which would adversely affect him or subjecting him to a decree of inconvenience of trouble and the power is exercised under a statute.

3.Mr. A.K. Sen, the learned Senior Counsel confined his argument on the following three grounds :

(i) Section 40(1) of the Foreign Exchange of Regulation Act, 1973 empowers the gazetted officer of Enforcement to summon any person whose attendants, the officer considers necessary either to give evidence or to produce a document during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. When the petitioner had been issued summons, some investigation or proceedings under the FERA Act deemed to be pending before the respondent. If no such investigation or proceeding pending, the respondent has no authority to issue summons. When the investigation is pending, it is the bounden duty of the authority to inform the p