JUDGMENT:

CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J.

1. We have gone through the draft judgment prepared by our noble and learned Brother Sathasivam, J. and we find ourselves unable to subscribe to the view taken by him.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 22nd May, 1992 various premises in occupation of the appellant Radheshyam Kejriwal besides other persons were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate. The appellant was arrested on 3rd May, 1992 by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate in exercise of the power under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') and enlarged on bail on the same day. Further the appellant was summoned by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate to give evidence in exercise of the power under Section 40 of the Act and in the light thereof his statement was recorded on various dates, viz. 22nd May, 1992, 10th March, 1993, 16th March, 1993, 17th March, 1993 and 22nd March, 1993.

3. On the basis of materials collected during search and from the statement of the appellant it appeared to the Enforcement Directorate that the appellant, a person reside