The Enforcement Directorate's actions under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act were deemed lawful, given the justified reason to believe that violations had occurred, affirming the legality of the searches and the subsequent detention without improper coercion.

1.Writ Petition No. 9380 of 1994 is filed by Bhabootmal Jain and his household servant Vagharam Choudhary. The said writ petition was filed on 16-5-1994 on the following allegations.

2. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the petitioners are law abiding citizens, and the first petitioner has retired from active business activities since past three years. The first petitioner has stated in the affidavit that his three sons are engaged in stainless steel business, dealing only in indigenous goods. It is said that the first petitioner's eldest son Vijayaraj is the proprietor of a firm 'VIJAYA STEEL CENTER' at No. 11 / C - 1, Ekambareswaram Agraharam, Madras - 3. According to the first petitioner, after visiting a nearby Jain Temple in the morning, he generally used to sit in the shop for some time, for the past more than 3 years. The petitioner No. 1 states in his affidavit that the petitioners have been constrained to take exception to the misuse of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ( FERA ) by a number of over enthusiastic Enforcement Officers under the sway of the fickle mistress that absolute power happens to be, against some luckless victims, like the petitioners. It is stated that the petitioners have fallen into the bad books of the Enforcement Officers. There was a raid on 1-10-1993 in the shop belonging to the elder son Vijayaraj Jain. Nothing incriminating could he recovered, though a Mahazar was prepared on that day. It is averred that after a lapse of more than seven months, the respondents, with a number of other Enforcement Officers, repeated the same exercise without any reasonable or probable cause, simultaneously at the residence of the first petitioner and the shop of his eldest son at Ekambareswarar Agraharam on 10-5-1994. At that time, the first petitioner was not present in the house. His second son Khimraj Jain was present throughout. It is said that the second respondent and a couple of other Enforcement Officers ransacked the whole house. They commenced the raid at about 1.30 p.m. and continued the search till about 3.00 p.m. on 10-5-1994, They did not find any incriminating material whatsoever. Still, the Enforcement Officers arrested the first petitioner's second son Khimraj Jain from the house, to falsely implicate him in a white collar offence to be foisted on him through his involuntary statement recorded during the late hours of 10-5-1994 night, in Shastri Bhavan. It is said that while the respondents were kind enough to give a copy of the Mahazar drawn at the house on 10-5-1994, they refused to give a copy of the statement dictated by them and written by the first petitioner's son Khimraj Jain, for reasons best known to them. It is further said that Khimraj will separately agitate about his illegal arrest and detention by the Enforcement Officers. The first petitioner has further stated in the affidavit that respondents 2 and 3, with a number of other Enforcement Officers, conducted a raid at the shop of Vijayaraj Jain, at a time when he was absent. It is stated that the petitioners were present during the fateful time of raid on 10-5-1994, which had commenced around 11.45 a.m. The Enforcement Officers did not find any incriminating material in the shop. However, from the Office situated in the first floor, they seized a sum of Rs.3,21,800/- in Indian currency. According to the first petitioner, the said office room was locked by his son Vi