C. SAMPATH KUMARversusTHE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MADRAS

A                        C. SAMPATH KUMAR
                                   v.
                THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, ENFORCEMENT
                        DI RECTO RA TE, MADRAS

                               SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
B
              [DR. A.S. ANAND AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.]


          Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 :

c          S.40-Summons issued under the section-Statement of the person to
    whom summons issued recorded-Writ petition filed by him challenging the
    issuance of summons and contending that he could not be compelled to give
    his Statement in writing-Writ petition dismissed by High Court-Held, a
    person to whom summons are issued under S.40 may be called upon to give
D   his statement in writing and sign it and such a course is not prohibited either
    by the statute or the Constitution-Administration of caution to such a
    person that not making a truthfal statement would be an offence cannot be
    construed as use of "pressure" to "extract" the statement-Such a caution
    has statutory backing of S. 40(3) itself and is in effect in the interest of the
    person who is making the statement in view of the provisions of S. 40 (4).
E
          Amba Lal v. Union ofIndia & Ors., AIR (1961) SC 264, followed.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6446of1997.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 28.3.96 of the Madras High Court
F   in W.A. No. 329of1996.

         S.S. Ray, T.S. Arunachalam, K.T.S. Tulsi, S.B. Wad, Jinasenan, N. Jothi,
    K.K. Mani, K.V. Vishwanathan, Vikas Pahwa, K.V. Vijayakumar, S.N. Bhat,
    Manoj Wad and V.K. Verma for the appearing parties.

G         The following Order of the Court was delivered :

          Leave granted.

         This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of the High
H   Court dated 28th March, 1996 in Writ Appeal No. 329 of 1996.
                                       I42
      C.S. KUMAR v. ENFORCEMENT OFFIC~R. ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE             143
       Summons were issued by the respondent to appellant under Section 40          A
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 12th July, 1996. The appellant filed a writ petition in the      B
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. The writ
appeal by a detailed order, was dismissed at the stage of admission itself. By      C
special leave, this appeal has been filed in this' Court.

      We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

      It is not denied that the statements of the appellant have been recorded
by the respondent on 15th May, 1996, 9th July, 1996 and 12th July, 1996.            D
Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute and rightly so that 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 such a course is not prohibited
either by the statute or the Constitution. In our opinion there is no presumption
that such a statement is always "involuntary''. In Amba Lal v. Union of India       E
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 signatures of the maker safeguards 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           F
"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.                                              G
      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           B
    144                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A leave petition itself. It is, therefore, not possible for us to assume 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"
B 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 tnaking the statement in view of provisions of Section
  40(4) ofFERA.

          Thus, for what we have said above and for the reasons given by the
C 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.

    RP.                                                       Appeal dismissed.