9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Kumar Sharma, who claims to be a freelance accountant carrying out accounting assignments for several entities including Mundhra Bullion Private Limited, Olympia Impex Private Limited (in short 'Olympia') and other entities. 3. W.P.No.15058 of 2020 has been filed by Madhavi Mundhra, wife of Ashish Mundhra, who runs Mundhra Bullion Private Limited and Mundhra Jewellers Private Limited (in short 'Mundhra'). She is a Director in both companies. 4. W.P.Nos.15190, 15192, 15193, 15196 and 15198 of 2020 have been filed by employees of Mundhra (drivers and shop assistants, in short 'employees'). 5. The genesis of the proceedings is the seizure of 15 kgs of gold booked by Sequel Logistics (consignor) to Olympia (consignee) by the customs authorities at the Kolkatta Airport. Olympia as well as Mundhra are located in Chennai. As a consequence, searches were initiated by the first respondent/the Senior Intelligence Officer in the offices of Olympia and Mundhra as well as other locations. I desist from stating the facts any further for two reasons, one, what is impugned before me is the summons and I am only to test the validity or otherwise of the same, and secondly, proceedings for inves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther requirement to re-examine them and the only reason why the authorities in Kolkata have issued the summons is the authorities in Chennai had failed in their attempt to elicit anything incriminating from the petitioners. 10. Mr.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Balaji, learned counsel for the Accountant would continue the line of argument of Mr.Muralikumaran to the effect that the impugned summons are only an exercise in harassment. He points out that the Directors of Mundhra have filed complaints before the police authorities and a charge-sheet has been filed. It is solely for this purpose that summons has been issued to the petitioners who are based in Chennai asking them to appear before the authorities in Kolkata. 11. In one voice, these petitioners would state that while they have no intention of disrespecting the statutory summons issued, proceedings must be initiated only by the authorities in Chennai and they should not be made to travel to Kolkatta at their cost. They would also offer that the proceedings should be conducted over video conference with the authorities in Chennai in attendance to ensure that proper decorum is maintained and the proceedings are co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and 30094 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 (Madras High Court)) iii) Bheena Pharma Japadar V. Union of India (W.P.Nos.15974 and 15975 of 1991 dated 06.12.1991 (Madras High Court)). 15. I had at the initial hearing of these matters, after hearing learned counsel for both parties, passed an order directing the conduct of proceedings by way of video conference. This was in the thick of the COVID -19 pandemic and a consent order was passed in the presence of Mr.Sundareswaran. 16. Having accepted this order, the respondents have not proceeded to conduct the proceedings over video conference. Neither has an application been filed before me seeking modification of the order. Instead, Mr.Sundareswaran relies now upon decisions to the effect that video conference is not a proper medium for the conduct of investigation, Delhi High Court in P.V.Rao Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer [2020 -TIOL-1984-HC-DELGST] and Shri Amit Gupta & Another Vs DGGI [2021-TIOL-398-HC-DELGST] and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lawrence Bishnoi Vs. State of Haryana & Others [CRWP-6427-2020]. 17. These cases are distinguished by the learned counsel for the petitioners who state that the facts in those cases are entir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ate or the person authorized by the respondent may watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be open to the respondent to have consultations with him in course of the interrogation. So too in Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India and another, Jignesh Kishorebhai Bhajiawala Vs. State of Gujarat (Crl. Misc. A.(Direction) No.289 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017), Krupa Mukund Panchal Vs. Union of India (2019 SCC online Bom.2593), B.Narayanaswamy Vs. Deputy Director & others (2019 SCC Online Mad 32868), Arvindkumar Jain Dhakad Vs. Union of India (W.P.No.2700 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019), Agarwal Foundaries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others (2020 SCC Online TS 1446), Rajinder Arora and Others Vs. Union of India and other [W.P.(Civil) No. 389 of 2010 dated 07.12.2010), Mahender Kumar Kundia vs. Union of India (319 ELT 9). 22. In a batch of cases decided on 03.04.2018, Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and batch, (2018 5 SCC 311), the importance of capturing of evidence by videography was emphasized by the Supreme Court, that issued a series of directions to the Director, Ministry of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t para 2 refer to their earlier judgment in the case of Shafhi Mohammad, noting at para 7, that compliance affidavits in regard to the action taken by 14 States and 2 Union Territories were filed. Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are on the list. 28. At page 8, the Supreme Court laments that the majority of the affidavits reports failed to disclose the exact positioning of the CCTV cameras and are bereft of details with regard to the total number of CCTV cameras, their working condition, whether they have recording facilities and for how many days/weeks the data will be stored. From paragraph 9 to 12 the Court records the progress required and sets out milestones to be achieved in the coming months. At para 17, it is highlighted that the CCTV system must be equipped with night vision and must consist of audio and video footage. The recording equipment used must, they say, allow for maximum storage, in any event not below one year and optimally 18 months. 29.The Union of India has been directed to file an affidavit to update the Supreme Court on the constitution and workings of the COB giving full particulars thereof. Para 19 names the Department of Revenue Intelligence specifically, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Executive/Administrative/police authorities are to implement this Order both in letter and in spirit as soon as possible. Affidavits will be filed by the Principal Secretary/Cabinet Secretary/Home Secretary of each State/ Union Territory giving this Court a firm action plan with exact timelines for compliance with today's Order. This is to be done within a period of six weeks from today. 30. Thus the need for comprehensive videography, and the installation of CCTV cameras in all investigating agencies has been recognised and directions issued as early as in 2018. This appears to be a work in progress. Meanwhile Courts continue to be flooded with writ petitions of the present nature putting forth allegations and apprehensions of abuse and torture, both perceived and justified. This would be obviated had a mechanism been put in place to ensure recording of the investigation. Such a process would seek to serve the interests of not only the person under investigation, but also the investigating agency. 31. In the absence of any instructions that are reported regarding the status of CCTV cameras in the DRI offices at Kolkata, I direct that the process of investigation of the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
