UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusCITI BANK, N. A.

                        [2022] 10 S.C.R. 279                             279


                    UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                A
                                  v.
                         CITI BANK, N. A.
                   (Civil Appeal No. 9337 of 2010)
                         AUGUST 24, 2022                                 B
                  [B. R. GAVAI AND
         PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
       Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973(FERA) – ss.6(4)(5),
8(1), 64(2)(4)(5) & 73(3) – Foreign Currency Deposit in Non-
                                                                         C
Resident External Account – Respondent-Bank was granted license
to act as an authorized dealer, had accepted cash in foreign currency,
equivalent to Rs.23,17,630/- during the period from October 1992
to January 1993 to the credit of NRE (Non-Resident External)
Account of a Non- Resident Indian (NRI) – RBI issued circular dated
31.07.1995, imposing restriction to the effect that only an NRI          D
Account Holder shall deposit foreign currency in his NRE account
– Show Cause notice issued on 25.09.2002 to the Bank – Thereafter,
the Adjudicating Officer held that the adjudication proceedings
should be held against the Bank – Single Judge of the High Court
in Writ Petition filed by the Bank, set aside the show cause notice –
                                                                         E
Single Judge held by taking into account that prior to 31 st July
1995, foreign currency deposits could be made by individuals other
than the NRI Account Holders in the NRE accounts of such NRIs –
Division Bench dismissed the Letter Patent Appeal – On appeal,
held: It is a settled proposition of law that when the proceedings are
required to be initiated within a particular period provided under       F
the Statute, the same are required to be initiated within the said
period – However, where no such period has been provided in the
Statute, the authorities are required to initiate the said proceeding
within a reasonable period – The show causes notices issued in the
year 2002, i.e. after a period of almost one decade from the date of
                                                                         G
the alleged transactions of 1992-1993 and that too just before the
sunset period of FERA was to expire, i.e., on 1 st June 2002 –
Therefore, show cause notices and proceedings continued
thereunder are liable to be set aside on this short ground – Banking
Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985.
                                                                         H
                                 279
280           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2022] 10 S.C.R.


A           Dismissing the appeals, the Court
             HELD: 1. It is a settled proposition of law that when the
      proceedings are required to be initiated within a particular period
      provided under the Statute, the same are required to be initiated
      within the said period. However, where no such period has been
B     provided in the Statute, the authorities are required to initiate
      the said proceeding within a reasonable period. No doubt that
      what would be a reasonable period would depend upon the facts
      and circumstances of each case. Admittedly, in the present cases,
      the alleged transactions had taken place during the financial years
      1992 and 1993. Show cause notices for the said transactions were
C     issued in the year 2002 and that too just before the sunset period
      of FERA was to expire, i.e., on 1 st June 2002. This Court is
      therefore of the considered view that show cause notices and the
      proceedings continued thereunder are liable to be set aside on
      this short ground. It can thus clearly be seen that the Banking
D     Companies (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985
      require every Banking Company to preserve records stated in
      Rule 2 for five years and eight years for records mentioned in
      Rule 3 respectively. No doubt that under Rule 4 of the said Rules,
      the RBI, having regard to the factors specified in sub-section (1)
      of Section 35-A, by an order in writing, is empowered to direct
E     any banking company to preserve any of the books, accounts or
      other documents, etc. for a period longer than the period specified
      under the said Rules. Undisputedly, no such order has been placed
      on record which required the respondents-Banks to preserve
      records concerning the transactions in question for a period
F     longer than eight years. It could thus be seen that even under
      the said Rules, the Banks are required to preserve the record
      for five years and eight years respectively. On this ground also,
      permitting the show cause notices and the proceedings continued
      thereunder of the transactions which have taken place much prior
      to eight years would be unfair and unreasonable. [Paras 19, 23,
G     25-27][287-C-D; 289-B-C; 290-C-F]
            The State of Gujarat v. Patil Raghav Natha and Others
            (1969) 2 SCC 187 : [1970] 1 SCR 335; Mohamad Kavi
            Mohamad Amin v. Fatmabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71;

H
        UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CITI BANK, N. A.                       281


      Government of India v. Citedal Fine Pharmaceuticals,              A
      Madras and Others (1989) 3 SCC 483 : [1989] 3 SCR
      465 – relied on.
      Union of India and Others v. N. R. Parmar and Others
      (2012) 13 SCC 340 : [2012] 13 SCR 555; S.S. Grewal
      v. State of Punjab and Others (1993) 3 Supp SCC 234;              B
      Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income
      Tax, Delhi-I (2007) 9 SCC 665 : [2007] 2 SCR 289;
      State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh and another
      (1990) Supp SCC 738 - referred to.
                          Case Law Reference                            C
[2012] 13 SCR 555                 referred to          Para 13
[2007] 2 SCR 289                  referred to          Para 16
[1970] 1 SCR 335                  relied on            Para 19
[1989] 3 SCR 465                  relied on            Para 21          D
      CIVIL/CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 9337 of 2010.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 26.03.2009 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in LPA No. 117 of 2009.
                                                                        E
      With
      Civil Appeal Nos. 4228-4261 of 2011, Criminal Appeal Nos. 169-
170 of 2012.
     Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, ASG, Kanu Aggarwal, Ms. Poornima Singh,
Manvendra Singh, Ms. Manisha Chava, Ms. Shagun Thakur, M. K.            F
Maroria, B. Krishna Prasad, Advs. for the Appellants.
      Rajeev K. Virmani, Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Ms. Sonia Mathur, Sr.
Advs., Ms. Rashmi Virmani, Sandeep Narain, Mohit Dang, M/s. S.
Narain & Co., Mahesh Agarwal, Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Sukriti
Bhatnagar, Karan Verma, Ateev Mathur, Ms. Sayree Basu Mallik, E. C.     G
Agrawala, Ms. Jagriti Ahuja, Vikas Kumar, Maish Paliwal, Ms. Khushboo
Agrawal, Ms. Prerna Dhall, Simarjeet Singh, Sanjay Gupta, Advs. for
the Respondent.

                                                                        H
282            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 10 S.C.R.


A           The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            B. R. GAVAI, J.
            1. Since the facts and the question of law that arises for
      consideration in all the appeals are similar, all these appeals are being
      heard and disposed of by the present Judgment.
B
             2. In Civil Appeal No. 9337 of 2010, the respondent-Bank was
      granted license to act as an authorized dealer under the provisions of
      sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 6 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation
      Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the FERA”). The respondent-
      Bank had accepted cash in foreign currency, equivalent to
C     Rs.23,17,630/- during the period from October 1992 to January 1993 to
      the credit of NRE (Non-Resident External) Account of Umakant
      Bhardwaj, a Non-Resident Indian (NRI). For the said transaction, a
      show-cause notice came to be issued on 25th February 2002 by the
      appellants, alleging therein that the respondent-Bank had contravened
D     the provisions of Sections 8(1), 64(2), 64(4), 64(5) and 73(3) of the FERA.
      The said show-cause notice was replied by the respondent-Bank on
      30th October 2002. It was the contention of the respondent-Bank that
      the restriction to the effect that only an NRI Account Holder shall deposit
      foreign currency in his NRE account was added only with effect from
      31st July 1995 vide a Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (“RBI”
E     for short) of the same date. It was therefore submitted that the said
      Circular dated 31st July 1995 could not be given effect retrospectively.
              3. However, vide notice dated 5th January 2005, the Adjudicating
      Officer held that the adjudication proceedings should be held against the
      respondent-Bank and fixed the matter for further proceeding on
F     25th January 2005. Being aggrieved by the decision of the Adjudicating
      Officer to proceed further, the respondent-Bank filed a petition being
      Writ Petition (Civil) No.1211 of 2005 before the High Court of Delhi.
      The learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated 23 rd March
      2007, directed the Advocate for the respondent therein (appellant herein),
G     i.e., the Enforcement Directorate to take specific instructions as to
      whether prior to 31st July 1995, foreign currency deposits could be made
      by individuals other than the NRI Account Holder in the NRE accounts
      of such NRIs. On 19th April, 2007, the Advocate for the appellants herein
      (respondents in the High Court) stated, on instructions, that prior to
      31st July 1995, foreign currency deposits could be made by individuals
H
         UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CITI BANK, N. A.                             283
                     [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

other than the NRI Account Holders in the NRE accounts of such NRIs.           A
As such, the learned Single Judge of the High Court, vide order dated
19 th April 2007, set aside the show cause notice as well as the
proceedings pursuant thereto. The same was sought to be reviewed by
way of Review Application No. 213 of 2007 before the High Court of
Delhi. However, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed
                                                                               B
the said Review Application vide judgment dated 16th January, 2009.
       4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 19th April,
2007 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1211 of 2005 and judgment and
order dated 6th January 2009 passed in Review Application No. 213 of
2007 of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the appellants herein
filed Letters Patent Appeal No.117 of 2009 before the High Court of            C
Delhi. Vide the impugned judgment and order dated 26th March 2009,
the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said Letters Patent
Appeal. Being Aggrieved thereby, Civil Appeal No. 9337 of 2010 has
been filed by the appellants herein.
       5. In Civil Appeal Nos. 4228-4261 of 2011, various show cause           D
notices were issued by the Enforcement Directorate jointly to the
respondent-Standard Chartered Bank and others in April and May 2002
for the transactions that took place in the year 1992-1993, alleging therein
that the respondent-Banks, by accepting foreign currency deposits by
individuals other than the NRI Account Holders in respect of the NRE           E
accounts, have committed violation of the provisions of the FERA. The
said show cause notices were challenged by filing Civil Writ Petitions
before the High Court of Delhi. The Division Bench of the High Court
of Delhi, vide impugned judgment and order dated 18th December 2009,
relying on the earlier Division Bench Judgment and order dated
26th March 2009 of the said High Court, allowed the said writ petitions.       F
Being aggrieved thereby, Civil Appeal Nos. 4228-4261 of 2011 have
been filed by the Directorate of Enforcement and others.
      6. In Criminal Appeal Nos. 169-170 of 2012, the proceedings in
pursuance to similar such show cause notices culminated into adjudicatory
orders dated 28th February 2005 and 4th April, 2006 passed by the              G
Adjudicating Authority, thereby imposing penalty on the respondent-Bank.
The same were challenged by way of Criminal Appeal Nos. 337 and
338 of 2009 before the High Court of Delhi. The learned Single Judge of
the High Court of Delhi vide the impugned judgment and order dated
15th December 2010 allowed the said appeals and set aside the orders
                                                                               H
284             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 10 S.C.R.


A     imposing penalty. Being aggrieved, the Directorate of Enforcement has
      filed Criminal Appeal Nos. 169-170 of 2012.
              7. We have heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional
      Solicitor General (“learned ASG” for short) appearing on behalf of the
      appellants, Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, learned Senior Counsel and Dr. A.M.
B     Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Citi Bank,
      Ms. Sonia Mathur, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
      Bank of America and Mr. Sanjay Gupta, learned counsel appearing on
      behalf of the Standard Chartered Bank.
              8. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the
      appellants would submit that the authorized dealers, who have taken
C     authorization from the RBI under the FERA, are mandatorily required
      to carry out due diligence and be satisfied that all three pre-conditions,
      namely, (i) the foreign currency is deposited by the account holder himself;
      (ii) the account holder is on a temporary visit to India; and (iii) the account
      holder is still normally resident abroad are mandatorily met before foreign
D     currency is deposited in the account of a non-resident, even prior to the
      Circular dated 31st July 1995.
              9. She submits that, under the provisions of sub-section (4) of
      Section 6 of the FERA, an authorized dealer is required to comply with
      such general or special directions or instructions as the RBI issues. She
E     submits that as per the said provision, except with the previous permission
      of the RBI, an authorized dealer is not permitted to engage in any
      transaction involving any foreign exchange which is not in conformity
      with the terms of his authorization.
              10. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati submits that under sub-section (5) of
      Section 6 of the FERA, an authorized dealer, before undertaking any
F     transaction in foreign exchange on behalf of any person, is required to
      obtain from that person a declaration and various information so as to
      satisfy himself that the transaction will not involve, and is not designed
      for the purpose of, any contravention or evasion of the provisions of the
      FERA or any rule, notification, direction or order made thereunder. She
G     submits that the said provision also requires that when such person
      refuses to comply with any such requirement or makes only
      unsatisfactory compliance therewith, the authorized dealer is required to
      refuse to undertake such transaction. It is submitted that if the authorized
      dealer has reason to believe that any such contravention or evasion as
      aforesaid is contemplated by the person, the authorized dealer is required
H     to report the matter to the RBI.
            UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CITI BANK, N. A.                          285
                        [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

       11. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG would submit that under            A
sub-section (2) of Section 64 of the FERA, any person who attempts to
contravene, or abets any contravention of, any of the provisions of the
FERA, or of any rule, direction or order made thereunder, he is deemed
to have contravened the said provision, rule, direction or order, as the
case may be. She further submits that under Section 73(3) of the FERA,
                                                                               B
the RBI is empowered to give directions regarding the making of payment
and the doing of other acts by bankers, authorized dealers, money-
changers, stock brokers, etc. for the purpose of securing compliance
with the provisions of the FERA and of any rules, directions or orders
made thereunder.
       12. Learned ASG further submits that under the Exchange Control         C
Manual, 1987, particularly clause 29 B.8, the authorized dealer is required
to be satisfied that the account holder is still normally resident outside
India and that the proceeds of foreign currency/bank notes tendered by
account holder were during his temporary visit to India.
       13. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG, therefore submits that a          D
conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of the FERA read with the
Exchange Control Manual, 1987 would clearly show that the authorized
dealer, before permitting the deposits of foreign currency, was required
to satisfy himself that the foreign currency is deposited by the NRI
Account Holder himself; that the account holder is on a temporary visit
                                                                               E
to India; and that the account holder is still normally resident abroad.
She submits that the Circular dated 31st July 1995 only clarifies by
abundant caution, what was already inherently and implicitly mandated
by the FERA and the Exchange Control Manual, 1987. She submits that
the High Court has grossly erred in holding that it was for the first time
that the stipulation regarding the deposits of foreign currency by the         F
account holder himself, was expressly provided for by Circular dated
31st July 1995 and therefore the Circular dated 31st July 1995 could not
have had a retrospective operation. It is submitted that the said finding is
erroneous. Learned ASG relies on the judgments of this Court in the
cases of Union of India and others vs. N.R. Parmar and others1 and
                                                                               G
S.S. Grewal vs. State of Punjab and others 2 on the issue of
retrospective operation of the clarificatory statute or statutory rules.


1
    (2012) 13 SCC 340
2
    1993 Supp (3) SCC 234                                                      H
286                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 10 S.C.R.


A             14. Per contra, Mr. Rajeev K. Virmani, learned Senior Counsel
      appearing on behalf of the respondent-Citi Bank, N.A. submits that the
      High Court has rightly held that the Circular dated 31st July 1995, for the
      first time, makes it mandatory that the deposits should be made in the
      NRE accounts only by the NRI Account Holder himself and that they
      cannot be made by any person other than the NRI Account Holder
B
      himself. It is submitted that different authorities have dealt with this
      issue differently. He relies on the order dated 10th February 2004 passed
      by Shri G.S. Sood, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate holding
      that during the relevant period, i.e., prior to 31st July 1995, an authorized
      dealer was not debarred from accepting foreign currency from a person
C     other than an account holder. However, in the present cases, the different
      Adjudicating Authorities had taken a contradictory stand.
             15. Mr. Virmani further submits that in view of sub-section (3) of
      Section 49 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which came
      into effect from 1st June 2000, a sunset period of two years was provided
D     from the date of commencement of the said Act, i.e. 1st June 2000, i.e.,
      upto 1st June 2002. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned show
      cause notices have been issued hurriedly just before the said sunset
      period was to expire prior to 1st June 2002. Learned Senior Counsel
      therefore submits that no interference with the impugned orders of the
      High Court is warranted.
E
             16. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
      of the respondent-Citi Bank submits that, assuming that the Circular
      dated 31st July 1995 was clarificatory, it cannot have a penal effect. It is
      submitted that by a Circular, a penal action cannot be provided and it can
      be done only by a statute. Dr. Singhvi relies on the judgment of this
F     Court in the case of Virtual Soft Systems Ltd. vs. Commissioner of
      Income Tax, Delhi-I3 in support of the proposition that unless it is
      specifically provided in the statute that the amendment is declaratory
      and applies to all pending cases/proceedings, it cannot be given
      retrospective operation.
G            17. Dr. Singhvi, relying on the provisions of the Banking Companies
      (Period of Preservation of Records) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred
      to as “the said Rules”), submits that Rule 3 of the said Rules provides
      that every banking company is required to preserve the records only for
      eight years. It is therefore submitted that the notices issued in the year
H     3
          (2007) 9 SCC 665
          UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CITI BANK, N. A.                               287
                      [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

2002 for the transactions that took place between 1992 and 1993 were              A
untenable, since they pertained to a period which falls beyond the period
of eight years from the date of the transactions.
      18. Though we have heard the learned counsels for the parties at
length on various issues, we find it unnecessary to go into the said issues
raised by the parties, inasmuch as, we are of the view that the show              B
causes notices issued in the year 2002, i.e., after a period of almost one
decade from the date of the alleged transactions of 1992-1993, were not
tenable in law.
       19. It is a settled proposition of law that when the proceedings are
required to be initiated within a particular period provided under the Statute,   C
the same are required to be initiated within the said period. However,
where no such period has been provided in the Statute, the authorities
are required to initiate the said proceeding within a reasonable period.
No doubt that what would be a reasonable period would depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. Reference in this respect
could be made to the judgment given by a three-Judge Bench of this                D
Court in the case of The State of Gujarat vs. Patil Raghav Natha and
others4, wherein this Court has held thus:
       “11. The question arises whether the Commissioner can revise
       an order made under Section 65 at any time. It is true that there
       is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 211, but it            E
       seems to us plain that this power must be exercised in
       reasonable time and the length of the reasonable time must
       be determined by the facts of the case and the nature of the
       order which is being revised.”
                                                        [emphasis supplied]       F
       20. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani Singh
and another5, this Court found that the departmental proceedings initiated
in the year 1987 for the alleged irregularities that took place between the
years 1975-77 could not be permitted to be continued as it would be
unfair and unreasonable.                                                          G
     21. In the case of Government of India vs. Citedal Fine
Pharmaceuticals, Madras and others6, validity of Rule 12 of the
4
  (1969) 2 SCC 187
5
  1990 (Supp) SCC 738
6
  (1989) 3 SCC 483                                                                H
288                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 10 S.C.R.


A     Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956, which
      did not provide for a period of limitation for initiating proceedings for
      recovery of escaped duty, was challenged. This Court in the said case
      observed thus:
               “6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urged that Rule
B              12 is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution,
               as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery
               of duty. He urged that in the absence of any prescribed period for
               recovery of the duty as contemplated by Rule 12, the officer may
               act arbitrarily in recovering the amount after lapse of long period
               of time. We find no substance in the submission. While it is true
C              that Rule 12 does not prescribe any period within which recovery
               of any duty as contemplated by the rule is to be made, but that by
               itself does not render the rule unreasonable or violative of Article
               14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any period of limitation
               it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within
D              a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period, would
               depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question
               regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand
               is raised, it would be open to the assesee to contend that it is
               bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant
               officer to consider the question whether in the facts and
E              circumstances of the case notice of demand for recovery was
               made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be
               laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will
               depend upon the facts of each case.”
                                                              [emphasis supplied]
F
            22. In the case of Mohamad Kavi Mohamad Amin vs.
      Fatmabai Ibrahim 7, suo motu proceedings were initiated in September,
      1976 by the Mamlatdar questioning the validity of sale deeds executed
      in December, 1972. In the said case, this Court, after noticing the earlier
      decisions on the issue, observed thus:
G
               “2. …….where no time-limit is prescribed for exercise of a
               power under a statute it does not mean that it can be exercised
               at any time; such power has to be exercised within a
               reasonable time. We are satisfied that in the facts and
      7
H         (1997) 6 SCC 71
         UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. CITI BANK, N. A.                          289
                     [B. R. GAVAI, J. ]

      circumstances of the present case, the suo motu power under           A
      Section 84-C of the Act was not exercised by the Mamlatdar
      within a reasonable time. …”
                                                    [emphasis supplied]
       23. Admittedly, in the present cases, the alleged transactions had
taken place during the financial years 1992 and 1993. Show cause notices    B
for the said transactions were issued in the year 2002 and that too just
before the sunset period of FERA was to expire, i.e., on 1 st June 2002.
We are therefore of the considered view that show cause notices and
the proceedings continued thereunder are liable to be set aside on this
short ground.                                                               C
      24. It will also be relevant to refer to the relevant provisions of
Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the said Rules, which read thus:
      2. Every banking company shall preserve, in good order, its books,
      accounts and other documents mentioned below, relating to a period
      of not less than five years immediately preceding the current         D
      calendar year.
      Ledgers and Registers:
      (1) Cheque Book Registers
      xxx       xxx      xxx                                                E
      xxx       xxx      xxx
      (6) Vault Registers.
      Records other than Registers:
      (1) Telegraphic Transfer Confirmations                                F
      (2) Telegrams and Telegram Confirmations
      3. Every banking company shall preserve, in good order, its books,
      accounts and other documents mentioned below, relating to a period
      of not less than eight years immediately preceding the current
                                                                            G
      calendar year.
      Ledgers and registers:
      (1) All personal ledgers
      xxx       xxx      xxx
                                                                            H
290              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 10 S.C.R.


A            (24) Clean cash books
             Records other than registers:
             (1) Bank cash scrolls
             xxx         xxx       xxx
B            (11) Press-copy books
             4. Notwithstanding anything contained in rules 2 and 3, the Reserve
             Bank may, having regard to the factors specified in sub-section
             (1) of section 35-A, by an order in writing, direct any banking
             company to preserve any of the books, accounts or other
C            documents mentioned in these rules, for a period longer than the
             period specified for their preservation, in the said rules.”
             25. It can thus clearly be seen that the said Rules require every
      Banking Company to preserve records stated in Rule 2 for five years
      and eight years for records mentioned in Rule 3 respectively. No doubt
D     that under Rule 4 of the said Rules, the RBI, having regard to the factors
      specified in sub-section (1) of Section 35-A, by an order in writing, is
      empowered to direct any banking company to preserve any of the books,
      accounts or other documents, etc. for a period longer than the period
      specified under the said Rules.
E           26. Undisputedly, no such order has been placed on record which
      required the respondents-Banks to preserve records concerning the
      transactions in question for a period longer than eight years.
            27. It could thus be seen that even under the said Rules, the Banks
      are required to preserve the record for five years and eight years
F     respectively. On this ground also, permitting the show cause notices and
      the proceedings continued thereunder of the transactions which have
      taken place much prior to eight years would be unfair and unreasonable.
             28. In this view of the matter, we find no error in the impugned
      judgments of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of
G     the High Court of Delhi. The Civil Appeals as also the Criminal Appeals
      are therefore dismissed. No order as to costs.
             29. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

      Ankit Gyan                                                 Appeals dismissed.
H     (Assisted by : Rahul Rathi, LCRA)