JUDGMENT - N. ARUMUGHAM, J.:---Rule by consent. Heard forthwith. 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash the search and seizure made by the Enforcement Director, the first and second respondent on 20-2-1998 by declaring the same is illegal, null and void inclusive of the pending Remand Case No. 13/RA/98, which is now on the file of learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 47th Court, Esplanade, Bombay and for returning the 21 gold bars to the petitioner, seized illegally and a direction to the respondents to return the Indian Currency of Rs. 5, 75, 000/- to the petitioner or in the alternative the cash of Rs. 5, 75. 000/- shall be kept in a nationalized bank as fixed deposit and other reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition. 2. In the writ petition it was mainly averred that the petitioner is a licence dealer in gold jewellery carrying on business in Bombay and that on 20-2-1998 the Enforcement Director had a search and seized a cash of Rs. 5,75,000/- and 21 gold bars from his shop and that on the same day evening the petitioner was taken to the office of the Enforcement Director, Bombay and his statement was obtained out of coercion and duress. However, the petitioner was able to retract the same by sending a rejoinder or explanatory letter subsequently. Since then onwards the petitioner is being harassed by the respondents to produce the original documents and that however, though it has been sent, they have not taken any effective steps in this regard as contemplated by law, under one pretext or the other. The activities of the respondents are highly illegal and unlawful and that therefore the petitioner has filed this writ petition, canvassing the above search and recovery of the goods seized. 3. A reply affidavit was filed by Shri S.L.J. Gallyot denying the said allegations in toto and that particularly in para 16 of the said affidavit he has averred the following:- "With reference to paras 13 and 14 I say that allegations contained in these paras are wrong and denied. The 21 gold bars were seized by the officers under reasonable belief that the same are proceeds of hawala payments being indulged into by the petitioner between India and abroad. As regards the seizure of gold bars etc. The 21 gold bars were seized by the officers under reasonable belief that the same are proceeds of hawala payments being indulged into by the petitioner between India and abroad. As regards the seizure of gold bars etc. in addition to section 37 of the FERA, 1973, section 38 of the said Act empowers any officers of Enforcement, without prejudice to the provisions of section 34 or section 36 or section 37, if he has reason to believe that any document or "THING" will be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or proceedings under this Act or in respect of which a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of rule, directions or order thereunder has taken place he may seize such documents or "THING". The power to seize documents or gold which is a "THING" is therefore fully covered in the actions pertaining to seizure. The Director of Enforcement is empowered to extend the custody of documents in terms of section 41 of the FERA, 1973. The term document would cover "THING" also since "THING" would come under property which can be confiscated in terms of section 673. To hold that section 41 would cover only document and not any "THING" would negate the purpose for which extension is permitted under section 41, for it would thus not be possible for the Department to confiscate any "THING" which is the proceeds of an amount involved in the contravention of FERA, if the same could not be seized and if the extension under section 41 was not applicable to "THING". Hence the petitioner's contention is to be rejected." 4. This affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent inter alia among other grounds, and each and every one of the averments made in the affidavit are totally denied. 5. In Exh. R-2 the Zerox copy of the order passed by the Enforcement Director, FERA, Government of India dated 13th August 1998 appended to along with the counter affidavit would reveal the fact that the detention of the documents for a further period of six months beyond 19-8-1998 has been made by the Director of Enforcement by virtue of section 41 of the FERA 1973. This would mean for all purpose, if the seized "THING" or document or any other "THING" relevant or useful for the purpose of investigation of the proceedings under the provisions of FERA, the Seizing Authority has the limitation for keeping the same for a period of one year from the date of its seizure or recovery namely 20-2-1998 to 20-2-1999. Accordingly since the first half of the said period is over for the purpose of taking or deciding otherwise the proceedings against the petitioner, the detention of the document or "THING" has been extended for six months by virtue of section 41 of the FERA and that as a result of which the period would expire in the instant case on 20-2-1999. The above position was also considered by Shri M.K. Patwardhan the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 6. In the context of the above rival pleadings projected form the respective affidavits filed by the parties by themselves, we have heard the rival submissions. 7. It was the very endeavour and the effort of Mr. Paul A. Kalambakadan the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that since the petitioner is a licenced dealer doing business in Jewellery in Bombay town in his shop and the accounts being kept in the regular course of business, the respondent had no authority or right to seize the cash and the gold bars above referred. To substantiate his contention the learned Counsel merely relied upon the section 37 of FERA, which will stated as hereunder:- "37(1) If any officer of Enforcement not below the rank of an Assistant Director of Enforcement, has reason to believe that any documents which, in his opinion, will be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or proceeding under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may authorize any officer of Enforcement to search for and seize or may himself search for and seize such documents. 2. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as amended, relating to searches, shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this section subject to the modification that sub-section (5) of section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if for the word "Magistrate", wherever it occurs, the words "Director of Enforcement or other officer exercising his powers" were substituted." 8. Emphasizing upon the very phraseology used by the legislature in section 37 above referred, it would pertains only to any documents, which will be useful or relevant, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would dealt with his attack upon the said search and seizure as illegal as Enforcement Authority has no power to seize the gold bars or the currency. Only on this angle and ground, he persuaded us to see the search and seizure made by the respondent on 20-2-1998 as illegal and unlawful. According to him, the search and seizure of the goods like the gold bars and the currency has not been provided under section 37 but however it does not implicate the same but only pertains to the documents alone and nothing more. 9. In this context it is pertinent for us to read section 38 also which required to be adumbrated in sequences, as quoted hereunder:- "38. Without prejudice to the provisions of section 34 or section 36 or section 37, if any officer of Enforcement authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, by general or special order, has reason to believe that any document or thing will be useful for, or relevant to, any investigation or proceeding under this Act or in respect of which a contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder has taken place, he may seize such document or thing." 10. A casual reading of the above section along with the section 37 as we have already stated and a conjoining analysis would clearly demonstrate for the purpose of any investigation or proceeding under these Acts to be taken for the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or any of the Rule the Enforcement Director is empowered clearly not only to seize any document but also a "THING", which was made clear under section 38, is within the legal ambit of the respondent. The word "THING" spelt out in two places in section 38 would be read along with the same object specifically provided in section 37 and 38 also for the purpose of investigation and proceedings to be initiated in contravention of any of the provisions of FERA, and for which it is thus made clear that the authorities namely the respondents who are authorized for the specific purpose is empowered to seize not only the documents but also the "THINGS", which are useful and relevant for the purpose of investigation and proceedings has personated and pertained to under the provisions of law. The word "THING" is an inclusive definition and cannot be segregated from the other word "document". If that is the position we have no hesitation to hold that for the purpose of investigation or proceedings to be started by the Enforcement Director for any of the provisions of this Act they can conduct the search and during that search they are entitled to seize not only the documents and all connected papers but also "things" which are useful and relevant for the purpose of specifically mentioned. In this context we are, in great respect, able to identify the fallacy in the argument advanced by Shri Paul A. Kalambukadan the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 11. The contra contention made by Shri Patwardhan emphasizing the very object and scope of section 37 and 38 read with 41 of FERA is very much impressive for us and in fact it has every force in the instant case, it would mean that the respondent authorities are within their legal ambit and limits and that they have conducted the search on 29-2-1998 of the shop of the petitioner and seized the currency of Rs. 5,75, 000/- in cash with 21 gold bars in the concealed cavity of the said shop. According to them, the said "THINGS" and the currency were the resulted goods of the Hawala Transaction which requires the initiation of the proceedings and investigation as held out clearly, under the provisions of the said Act. It is at this stage we have recorded the statement of Shri Patwardhan the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the investigation for the propose of any proceedings under the provisions of this Act, in the instance case, shall be completed on or before the period extended namely 20-2-1999. It is at this stage we have recorded the statement of Shri Patwardhan the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent that the investigation for the propose of any proceedings under the provisions of this Act, in the instance case, shall be completed on or before the period extended namely 20-2-1999. If this being the position of the law in the factual matrix, we find that there are no merits or violation of any fundamental right involved on behalf of the petitioner, and as such the writ petition must fail. 12. In the result for the foregoing reasoning the writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged accordingly. Petition dismissed. *****