2023 (4) TMI 838 - HC - Customs

Scope of the investigation - involvement of high-ranking political functionaries of the State - gold smuggling activities - Seeking direction to the Customs and Enforcement Directorate, Government of India to conduct a fair and time bound investigation into allegations of money laundering and illegal gold smuggling - HELD THAT - When the Customs had, pursuant to the show-cause notice, conducted an investigation and filed complaints based on the materials collected, a direction to conduct a further investigation into the involvement of other persons ought not to be indulged in by this Court in the exercise of the Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Except for assumptions and surmises, no material has been produced by the petitioner to countenance such exceptional circumstances. The complaints already filed are under the Customs Act, and they are pending consideration - there are sufficient provisions under law to add parties in case any offence is revealed later as having been committed by any person. It is evident that even the very apprehension expressed by the petitioner regarding the non-conduct of a fair and proper investigation is without any basis. The Customs as well as the Enforcement Directorate, have conducted or are conducting proper investigations. There are also no reasons to assume that if the involvement of any person is revealed in the investigation, they will not be proceeded against. For, the dictum Be you ever so high, the law is above you applies with equal vigour to all, irrespective of status or position. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition
2. Failure to Reveal Material Facts and Petitioner's Connection with the 6th Respondent
3. Objections Regarding Affidavit and Alternative Remedies
4. Previous Judgments on Similar Issues
5. Merits of the Allegations and Relief Claimed

Summary:

1. Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
The petitioner sought a direction for a fair and time-bound investigation into allegations of money laundering and illegal gold smuggling, involving high-ranking political functionaries. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petition, arguing the absence of pleadings about the petitioner's credentials, unsubstantiated allegations against constitutional functionaries, and the existence of alternative remedies.

2. Failure to Reveal Material Facts and Petitioner's Connection with the 6th Respondent:
The petitioner did not disclose his identity or his connection with the 6th respondent, Ms. Swapna Suresh, in the writ petition. The court noted that the petitioner was allegedly the employer of Ms. Swapna Suresh and had failed to reveal this fact. Despite this, considering the public importance of the case, the court decided that the absence of pleading as to the credentials of the petitioner, by itself, need not de-suit the petitioner.

3. Objections Regarding Affidavit and Alternative Remedies:
The respondents argued that the affidavit and documents filed by the petitioner were imperfect and that alternative remedies were available. The court held that these objections were not sustainable in the peculiar circumstances of this case, emphasizing that the court cannot shut its doors to documents that can throw light on allegations of impairment of public probity.

4. Previous Judgments on Similar Issues:
The court referenced two previous judgments where similar writ petitions seeking directions for criminal investigations against the Chief Minister of Kerala were dismissed. The court noted that the present writ petition sought practically the same relief as those earlier petitions, and entertaining this petition would lead to a plurality of litigations, potentially derailing the administration of justice.

5. Merits of the Allegations and Relief Claimed:
The court found that the Customs and Enforcement Directorate had already conducted investigations and filed complaints based on the materials collected. There were no exceptional circumstances or materials produced by the petitioner to warrant a further investigation. The court also noted that ongoing investigations under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and other relevant laws were being conducted properly. Therefore, the relief of a fair and just investigation and monitoring of the investigation could not arise.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, concluding that the preliminary objections raised by the respondents had merit and that the petitioner's apprehensions regarding the non-conduct of a fair investigation were without basis. The court emphasized that the law applies equally to all, irrespective of status or position.