The Enforcement Officer is entitled to retain the documents seized under S. 19-G of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act pending adjudication proceedings commenced under S. 51 of the Act, even if the one-year period specified in S. 19-G has expired.

KAILASAM C. J.:- This appeal is preferred by the Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Madras, against the judgment of Ramanujam, J. in W. P. 6771 of 1975 dated 16-7-1976 directing him (Enforcement Officer) to return the documents seized from the first respondent herein.

2. On 13-9-1974, the residential premises of the first respondent was searched. Three fixed deposit receipts of the first respondent were recovered. One was in the name of one Vaidyalingam Chettiar. A statement was recorded from the first respondent. On 1-11-1974, the Deputy Controller of Reserve Bank was asked to block the operation of the fixed deposit receipts. The Deputy Controller by his order dated 5-11-1974, blocked the operation of the fixed deposit receipts. On 19-5-1975, the first respondent was directed under S. 40 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, to appear before the officer on 25-5-1975. The matter was adjourned to 16-6-1975. Fresh summons was issued on 31-5-1975. In the meantime, the first respondent filed W. P. 4259 of 1975, questioning the validity of the summons. On 19-6-1975 this Court issued a rule Nisi and directed stay of operation of the summons. The first respondent also filed W. P. 4287 and 5090 of 1974, questioning the blocking of the fixed deposit receipts. These writ petitions were allowed only in respect of two fixed deposit receipts as the remittances were found to be from authorised channels. On 29-10-1975, the first respondent filed W. P. 6771 of 1975, praying for the return of the documents seized from him on the ground that one year had elapsed from 13-9-1974. On 12-12-1975, W. P. 4259 of 1975 questioning the legality of issuing summons was taken up and was dismissed holding that the first respondent was bound to appear in obedience to the summons. On 15-7-1976, W. P. 6771 of 1975 was allowed as one year had elapsed from 13-9-1974, and this writ appeal is preferred against that order.

3. On behalf of the Enforcement Officer, the appellant, it was submitted that the learned Judge was in error in directing the return of the documents as the Enforcement Directorate has not only the power but also a duty to retain the documents when proceedings are taken for adjudication. Section 19-A empowers the Enforcement Officer to search any person. Section 19-G provides that where in pursuance of an order under sub-s. (2) of S. 19, any document is furnished or seized and the Director of Enforcement or any other officer of Enforcement has reason to believe that the said document would be evidence of the contravention of any of the provisions of the Act and that it would be necessary to retain the document in his custody, he may so retain the said document for a period not exceeding one year; and the officer can keep the document for more than one year if he, before the expiry of the said period commenced any proceedings under S. 23, in which case, he will be entitled to retain the document until the disposal of those proceedings. Section 23 prescribes the procedure for levying penalty. If any person contravenes any of the provisions mentioned in S. 23, he shall be liable to such penalty not exceeding three times the value of the foreign exchange in respect of which the contravention has taken place, or five thousand rupees, whichever is more, as may be adjudged by the Director of Enforcement in the manner provided for. He is also liable to be prosecuted in a criminal Court. Under S. 23 (1-B), the power of confiscation is also conferred. Section 41 of the new Act, namely, Act 46 of 1973, corresponds to S. 19-G with an added explanation, which is not necessary for the purpose of this case. According to that section, the authority can retain the document for a period of one year; but he may retain it for an extended period if before the expiry of the said period of one year, he commences proceedings under S. 51 of the new Act. Section 51 confers power on the authority to adjudicate against any person who has committed