http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: C. SAMPATH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MADRAS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/09/1997

BENCH: A. S. ANAND, K. VENKATASAMI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: Present:                Hon’ble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand                Hon’ble Mr. justice K. Venkataswami S.S.  Ray,   T.S. Arunachalam,  K.T.S.   Tulsi,  S.B.   Wad, Sr. Advs.,    Jinasenan,     N. Jothi,    K.K. Mani,    K.V. Vishwanathan,  Vikas  Pahwa,  K.V.  Vijayakumar,  S.N. Bhat, Manoj Wad,  V.K. Verma,  Advs., with  them for the appearing parties.                          O R D E R The following order of the Court was delivered.      Leave Grated,      This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the  High Court  dated 28th  March, 1996  in writ  Appeal no.329 of 1996.      Summons were  issued by  the  respondent  to  appellant under Section  40 of  the Foreign  Exchange Regulation  Act, 1973 (hereinafter  called as  FERA) to  appear before him on the fixed date.  After putting in certain conditions for his appearance, the  appellant appeared before the respondent on 15th May,  1996  when  his  statement  was  recorded.    His statements were  also recorded  on 9th  July, 1996  and July 12th.  The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the  issuance of  summons to him and in the writ petition precise  grievance  made  was  that  the  appellant cannot be  "compelled" to  give his  statement in writing in connection with  an offence  under FERA.   A  learned Single Judge of  the High Court after detailed discussion dismissed the writ  petition.  The appellant took the matter in a writ appeal by  a detailed  order, was  dismissed at the stage of admission itself.   By  special leave,  this appeal has been filed in this court.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.      It is  not denied  that the  statement of the appellant have been  recorded by the respondent on 15th May, 1996, 9th July, 1996.   Learned  counsel for  the  appellant  did  not dispute and  rightly so  that a  person to  whom summons are issued under  section 40  of FERA may be called upon to give his statement  in writing  and sign it and a such a corse is not prohibited  either by  the statute  or the constitution. In our opinion there is no presumption that such a statement

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

is always  "involuntary.  In Amba Lal vs. Union Of India and others: AIR  1961 Sc  264 a constitution Bench of this court opined that  such a  course was  desirable and observed that the giving  of the  Statement in writing under the signature of the maker safeguards the interest of the maker as well as the department  and the interest of the maker as well as the department  and  eliminates  the  possibility  of  making  a complaint subsequently  that the statement was not correctly recorded by  the authorities.  What has, however, been urged before us  is that  he cannot  be "compelled’ to give such a statement.  Apart from the assertion of the appellant in the court   that    the   statements   are   "extracted"   under "compulsion" Which  fact has been denied by the respondents, there is  no other  material placed on the record from which we may assume any element of "compulsion" being exercised as alleged by the appellant.      Despite our  giving opportunities  to the  appellant to file copies  of those  statements in  this court  to satisfy ourselves whether  there was  any  element  of  "compulsion" visible from  those statements,  copies of  those statements have been  withheld for reasons best known to the appellant. As a matter of fact copies of those statements ought to have been filed  with the  special leave petition itself.  It is, therefore,  not  possible  for  us  to  was  some  that  any "compulsion" was  exercised by  the respondent  to force the appellant to give his statements in writing.  Administration of caution  to the  person summoned under Section 40 of FERA that not  making a  truthful statement  would be  an offence cannot by  any stretch of imagination be construed as use of "pressure" to  "extract" the  statement.   Administration of such a  caution, which  has the statutory backing of Section 40(3) of  FERA itself,  is in  effect in the interest of the person who is making the statement in view of the provisions of Section 40(4) of FERA.      Thus, for  what we  have said above and for the reasons given by  the high  Court, we  find no merit in this appeal. This appeal,  therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.  The interim direction  shall stand vacated.  The appellant shall pay Rs.5,000/- as costs.