Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

38. In Shanti Prasad v. Director of Enforcement the vires of Section 28(1)(a) is questioned. The Supreme Court made the following observations at page 1768:

A law which prescribes a special procedure for investigation of breaches of foreign exchange regulations will therefore be not bit by Article 14 as it is based on a classification which has a just and reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. The vires of Section 28(1)(a) is accordingly not open to attack on the ground that it is governed by a procedure different from that prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code. That indeed is not controverted by the appellant. That being so, does it make any difference in the legal position that Section 23D provides for transfer by the Director of Enforcement of cases which he can try, to the court? We have not here, as in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali a law which confers on an officer an absolute discretion to send a case for trial either to a court or to a magistrate, empowered to try cases under a special procedure. Section 28-D confers authority on the very officer who has power to try and dispose of a case to send it on for trial to a court, and that too only when he considers that a more severe punishment than what he is authorised to impose, should be awarded. In a judicial system, in which there is hierarchy of courts or Tribunals, presided over by Magistrates or officers belonging to different classes, and there is a devolution of powers among them graded according to their class, a provision such as Section 23-D is necessary for proper administration of justice.... In our view the power conferred on the Director of Enforcement under Section 23-D to transfer cases to a court is not unguided or arbitrary, and does not offend Article 14 and Section 23(1)(a) cannot be assailed as unconstitutional.