2021 (12) TMI 1311 - HC - Money Laundering

Jurisdiction - Power to issue SCN - illegal coal mining in the State of West Bengal - case of the petitioners is that the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 are investigating officers as per Section 48 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and while working as Assistant Directors in the Directorate of Enforcement, the said petitioners claim to be Public Servants in terms of section 21 of Indian Penal Code - HELD THAT - It becomes apparent that power of the Police Officer to require attendance of a witness is circumscribed by the words within the limits of his own or any adjoining station . It is to be noted that if the said power was in the nature of pan-India power, as has been sought to be argued by the respondents, there was no reason for the Legislature to use the terminology quoted above. To the contrary, if the same was the intention of the Legislature, the Legislature would have clearly stated so and bestowed unlimited jurisdiction on the Police Officer by using terminology in the nature of anywhere in the country or even anywhere within the State . The clear departure of the Legislature and the use of the terms within the limits of his own or any adjoining station points towards a legislative intention to limit the jurisdiction in this regard. On the issue of the competence of the Respondents to issue the impugned notices, a serious challenge has been presented by the petitioners, which prima facie, seems to have considerable merit. It may also be noted that the said issue goes to the root of the matter and if the respondents lacks jurisdiction itself to issue the impugned notices, the entire case of the respondents falls. Maintainability of the petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement - HELD THAT - There are no merit in the preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition on this ground. The question of law whether the Petitioner No. 1 can maintain writ petition under Article 226 can be decided at a later stage. The Court further does not seek to comment upon whether the counsel for the petitioners can appear for petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 or not as the same is not germane to the present proceedings. On a perusal of the entire facts and circumstances pleaded in the petition, and further, specifically the claim of the petitioners that the legal right claimed by them has been infringed by the respondents within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the opinion that the petitioners have made out a prima facie case as to the maintainability of the present petition. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Power under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to issue notices.
2. Maintainability of the petition by the Directorate of Enforcement.
3. Territorial jurisdiction to quash the impugned notices.
4. Case for interim relief.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Power under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to Issue Notices:
The court examined Section 160 Cr.P.C., which allows a police officer to require the attendance of any person within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. The court noted that the legislative intent was to limit the jurisdiction to the local or adjoining police stations, and not to grant pan-India jurisdiction. The respondents' reliance on the judgment in Anant Brahmachari V. Union of India was dismissed, as it pertained to the National Investigation Agency Act, which has nationwide jurisdiction. The court agreed with the precedent set in Ravinder Singh V. State and Anr., where summons issued outside the local jurisdiction were quashed. Therefore, the court found that the respondents lacked jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices.

2. Maintainability of the Petition by the Directorate of Enforcement:
The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition by the Directorate of Enforcement, noting that the petition was also filed and affirmed by petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4, who are natural persons and the actual aggrieved parties. The court found no merit in the objection and allowed the petition to proceed, reserving the question of law regarding the Directorate's ability to file under Article 226 for later determination.

3. Territorial Jurisdiction to Quash the Impugned Notices:
The court considered the principle of "part of cause of action" and noted that the impugned notices were served to persons residing in Delhi. The court referenced several judgments, including Kusum Ingots and Alloys Limited v. Union of India, which support the exercise of jurisdiction if part of the cause of action arises within the court's territorial limits. The court found that the petitioners had made a prima facie case for the maintainability of the petition within its jurisdiction.

4. Case for Interim Relief:
The court evaluated the conditions for granting interim relief: a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury. Given the discussions and findings on the jurisdictional issues and the lack of specific allegations against petitioners No. 2, 3, and 4, the court found that the petitioners had established a case for interim relief. Consequently, the operation of the notices dated 22.07.2021 and 21.08.2021 was stayed until further orders.

Conclusion:
The court stayed the operation of the impugned notices and allowed the respondents to file their response within four weeks, with the petitioners permitted to file a rejoinder affidavit within two weeks thereafter. The matter was listed for further hearing on 18.02.2022.