2013 (11) TMI 40 - HC - Indian Laws

Presence of the Petitioner while opening of Authenticated Document Held that - Petitioner contended that If the Investigating Officer intends to get those documents opened, he can open it in the Court, in absence of the petitioner who would be represented by his lawyer and the petitioner will have no objection if it is opened and is handed over to the Investigating Officer and therefore, any direction given to the petitioner to remain present is unwarranted - There is no justification on the part of the Court to ask the petitioner to remain present at the time of opening of those envelopes - the order dated 23-9-2011 and also the order dated 28-10-2009 set aside Decided in favour of Applicant.

Summary

Issues:
Interlocutory application for quashing of an order dated 28-10-2009 passed by Sub-Judge-II Economic Officer in C.O. case No. 1 of 2009.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by R.R. Prasad, J. of Jharkhand High Court pertains to an interlocutory application filed seeking permission to incorporate a prayer for quashing an order dated 28-10-2009 passed by the Sub-Judge-II Economic Officer in C.O. case No. 1 of 2009. The court allowed the prayer made in the interlocutory application, thereby making it a part of the main writ application. The petitioner, represented by Shri Indrajit Sinha, was aggrieved by the order dated 23-9-2011 and the order dated 28-10-2009, which directed the petitioner to be present at the time of opening envelopes containing authenticated documents.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the authenticated documents had already been sealed and handed over to the Investigating Officer, who now intended to open the envelopes for investigation purposes. The petitioner contended that there was no need for him to be present during the opening of the envelopes, as the Investigating Officer could do so in court in the presence of the petitioner's lawyer. The Central Excise counsel clarified that the issue was limited to the opening of envelopes containing authenticated documents, not the authentication of additional documents by the petitioner.

The court, after considering the arguments, found no justification for requiring the petitioner to be present during the opening of the envelopes. Consequently, the court set aside the orders dated 23-9-2011 and 28-10-2009. The application was allowed with the condition that the petitioner must cooperate in the investigation. Additionally, the court directed a copy of the order to be communicated to the relevant court through FAX at the petitioner's expense. This judgment highlights the importance of justifying court directives and ensuring procedural fairness in legal proceedings.