9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case Devendra Dwivedi, the Supreme Court, in that context, made observations in paragraph-8 that the Supreme Court will have the benefit of the considered view of the jurisdictional High Court. The Supreme Court made a distinction between Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of Cr.P.C. in respect of grievance regarding the conduct of the investigation. Therefore, the Applicant's grievance will have to be considered in the light of the remedies under Cr.P.C. and cannot be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, it is not proper to decide and declare on the questions of law pending before the Apex Court in the Applicants petition. The Supreme court, in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [ 2021 (4) TMI 1244 - SUPREME COURT] , has laid down that the High Court shall not pass the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - As no case is made out by the Applicant on facts for the exercise of jurisdiction under 482 of the Cr.P.C., this dicta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 OF 2021 - - - Dated:- 29-10-2021 - NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. Mr. Vikram Choudhary, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Senior Advocate, Mr. Inderpal B. Singh, Mr. Aniket Ujjwal Nikam and Harpreet Singh J. Purewal for the Applicant. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General with Mr. Aman Lekhi, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Anil C. Singh, Addl. Solicitor General, Mr. Zoheb Hossian, Special Counsel , Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Mr. Vivek Gumani, Mr. Aditya Thakkar, Mr. Ujjwal Sinha, Mr. Aniket Seth, Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Kr. Kunwar Aditya Singh and D.P. Singh i/b. Shriram Shirsat for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for Respondent No.3- State. JUDGMENT : (Per Nitin Jamdar, J.) The Applicant has filed this criminal application for various reliefs, primarily pertaining to the summons issued by the Respondent-Directorate of Enforcement under section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. The Applicant, at the relevant time, was the Home Minister in the State of Maharashtra. The then Commissioner of Police, Mr.Param Bir Singh, wrote a letter to the Chief Minister of Maharashtra on 20 March 2021 alleging that Applicant abused h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent his authorized representative with a written reply. On 12 July 2021, the Directorate issued a summons to the Applicant's wife and sought certain documents. The wife of the Applicant sent a reply through her authorized representative on 14 July 2021. To the other summons received by the Applicant's wife on 14 July 2021, she sent a reply annexing certain documents on 16 July 2021. The Directorate sent a summons to the son of the Applicant- Salil, on 25 July 2021, requiring him to remain present on 26 July 2021. The son of the Applicant sent a reply through email and asked his authorized representative to attend. The Directorate sent the fourth summons to the Applicant on 30 July 2021, to which the Applicant gave a reply through his authorized representative. The Directorate of Enforcement issued an order of provisional attachment on 16 July 2021. 5. Meanwhile, Writ Petition (Cri.) No.282/2021 was filed by the Applicant along with his son in the Supreme Court. On 16 August 2021, the Supreme Court directed that this writ petition be listed along with matters raising identical legal issues. As regards interim relief, Supreme Court observed that it would be open to the Pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon ble Supreme Court of India in its Order dated 07.05.2021 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1/2020, In Re : Contagion of COVID-19 Virus In Prisons inter alia relating to the adherence to the law laid done in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 ; (f) Direct the Respondent No.2 to act strictly in terms of Section 41A of the Cr.P.C., as accorded imprimatur and interpreted by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and not to arrest the Applicant as the sentence contemplated under Section 3 of PMLA in the Petitioner s case may extend to 7 years; (g) Direct the Respondent No.2 to act strictly in consonance with the directives laid down in Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. (1994) 4 SCC 260 which has been accorded imprimatur by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Ors. (2012) 4 SCC 1 with respect to arbitrary arrests; (h) Issue appropriate writ(s), orders(s) or directions(s) to Respondent No.2 in furtherance of the observations; order(s) and direction(s) issued by the Hon ble Supreme Court inter alia, vide Order dated 02.12.2020 passed in SLP (Cri.) No. 3543 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , is ultra vires and unconstitutional being violative Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (b) Issue appropriate Writ, Order or Direction(s) holding the investigations into the non-cognizable Offence(s) under PMLA without seeking order of the Magistrate as per Section 155 Cr.P.C. to be null and void ab initio; and in the alternative thereto in the event that the offences under the PMLA are construed to be cognizable , it may be held that investigations without recording the FIR and without following the procedure prescribed under Sections 154, 156, 157, 172 Cr.P.C. etc. are illegal non-est, null and void ab initio; without jurisdiction, unconstitutional, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; (c) Issue appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to and hold that the insertion of Explanation after sub-section (2) of Section 45 of PMLA vide Section 200 of the Finance Act, 2019 (2 of 2019) (23 of 2019) w.e.f. 1.8.2019 which now contemplates that the offences under the Act are always deemed to be cognizable is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. (d) Issue appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) and hold that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Issue appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) to Respondent No.2 in furtherance of the observations; order(s) and direction(s) issued by this Hon ble Court inter alia, vide Order dated 02.12.2020 passed in SLP (Cri.) No.3543 of 2020 titled as Paramvir Singh Saini vs. Baljit Singh Ors as well as directions in Vijay Sajnani Versus Union of India 2012 SCC OnLine 1094 Birendra Kumar Pandey vs. Union of India Ors. W.P.(Cri.) 28 of 2012 Order dated 16.04.2012 to the effect that in compliance with the letter spirit of the aforementioned directions, all proceedings carried out by Respondent No.2 including those in relation to the recording of statements etc. in terms of the Notice(s)/ summon(s) issued under Section 50 of PMLA in ECIR MBZO-1/66/2021 to be audio/videographed in the presence of Petitioners lawyer at a visible distance inter-alia by way of installation of appropriate CCTV cameras; It is apparent from reading of these two sets of prayers that there is an overlap between the prayers in the present Application and Writ Petition (Cri.) No.282/2021 pending in the Supreme Court. 9. Learned Counsel informs us that a group of a large number of matters is bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt reads thus: The Writ Petition be heard along with connected matters. As regards interim relief, it will be open to the Petitioners to take recourse to appropriate remedies available (under the Criminal Procedure Code including by way of quashing petition, if so advised. The challenge in this petition will be confined to the validity of the provisions in question. We are inclined to pass this order in light of the observation made in Devendra Dwivedi v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 221. According to the Applicant, as per the liberty granted, both the prayers, for interim relief and quashing, are permitted to be made before the High Court. Applicant contended as follows. The High Court has ample powers to consider the relief prayed for by the Applicant and the order passed by the Supreme Court on 16 August 2021 in Writ Petition (Cri.) No. 282 of 2021 has kept the remedies of the Applicant under the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of quashing Petition and interim relief open, and the only aspect which will now be considered by the Supreme Court is the challenge to the validity of the provisions. Even if some of the prayers made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re on the questions of law pending before the Apex Court in the Applicants petition. 12. The scope of the matter before us is, thus, restricted to the quashing of summons and protection order in the facts of the case and not for deciding the questions of law referred to earlier, which are pending before the Supreme Court. 13. The outcome of the discussion on the prayer to quash the summons issued to the Applicant by Respondent No.2 under Section 50 of the PMLA and on the prayer to restrain Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 from taking any penal/coercive action against the Applicant, will have a bearing on the other prayers and is taken up first. 14. The genesis of this Application is the summonses issued under section 50 of the PMLA. Before we consider the Applicant's case on facts, the legal position as to the stage at which the Applicant has approached this Court and the parameters of interference by the High Court at this stage and statutory scheme of the statute in question, the PMLA, will have to be referred to. 15. When the court is called upon the pass orders regarding proceedings under an enactment, it is essential to keep in mind the object and purpose of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (a) discovery and inspection; (b) enforcing the attendance of any person, including any officer of a 1[reporting entity] and examining him on oath; (c) compelling the production of records; (d) receiving evidence on affidavits; (e) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses and documents; and (f) any other matter which may be prescribed. (2) The Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under this Act. (3) All the persons so summoned shall be bound to attend in person or through authorized agents, as such officer may direct, and shall be bound to state the truth upon any subject respecting which they are examined or make statements, and produce such documents as may be required. (4) . Thus under section 50, the authorities can enforce the attendance of any person compelling the production of records, for receiving evidence on affidavits, for examination of witnesses and documents etc. The authorities can su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zable crime without requiring any authority from the judicial authority. There is a demarcated boundary between crime detection and crime punishment. The investigation of offence is a field reserved for the executive, and it is the executive who is charged with a duty to keep vigilance over law and order situations, and is duty-bound to investigate the offences. Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities, and one ought not to tread over the other sphere. The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping. The courts would not interfere with the investigation or during the investigation except in exceptional cases where non-inference will result in a miscarriage of justice. Unless a gross abuse of power is made out against those who are in charge of the investigation, the court should not generally interfere at the early stages of the investigation. The power to quash criminal proceedings and investigation is exercised very sparingly with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. However, which are those vested interests who were working against the Applicant are not stated. Then in the pleading, the chronology of the summonses and responses by the Applicant has been narrated. In the grounds taken in the Application, it is stated that summonses were issued under malice, how the summonses have been issued, and the timings of the summonses. In ground (g) of the Application, it is stated that the proceedings are actuated with malice in law and also in fact, the action of Respondent No.3 is out of political vendetta. These are the only pleadings and grounds. Both in the oral arguments and the pleadings and in the written notes, the attempt of the Applicant to establish the case of malice in law and fact based on the manner of issuance of summonses and their timings. 20. One of the contentions, we deal with at the outset is not providing the ECIR to the Applicant. This contention was on two facets. First, the copy of ECIR being akin to FIR ought to have been supplied as it is a right of the Applicant to receive the ECIR. The second contention is as an incidence of malafides as the ECIR of 11 May 2021 was made available only on 9 August 2021 by appendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es any person to state the truth, offends the guarantee under Article 20(3) against self-incrimination. The learned ASG, on the other hand, contended that the Applicant is at the most a suspect at the stage, and there is no question of application of Article 20(3). Learned ASG placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Narayan Bansilal v. Maneck Phiroz Mistry (1961) 1 SCR 417. In this case, the Constitution Bench was considering the case of a managing director of a limited company. The Registrar of Companies had written to the appellant company that he had received material that the company's business was carried out in fraud, and he called upon the company to furnish information. The government authorities appointed an inspector to investigate the affairs of the company. The appellant company filed a writ petition challenging the direction as regards the proposed investigation. It was also argued that the provision of the amended Companies Act, 1956 was offending the protection given under Article 20(3). The Constitution Bench negating the contention based on Article 20(3), observed that though it is true that as a result of the investigation, it may be di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the part of Respondent- Directorate is explicit. Both in the oral arguments and the pleadings and in the written notes, the case for mala fide, malice in law and fact is centred around the issuance of summonses and their timings. In the facts of the case, the malice in law and the abuse of the procedure are evident once the Respondent- Directorate's conduct is seen in totality. The Applicant submitted that the manner in which the entire case has unfolded and the facts therein looked at cumulatively will demonstrate the legal and factual malice. The narration of events by the Applicant in support of the contention is as follows:- a) The first summons, which was issued on 25 June 2021 under Section 50 of the PMLA, called upon the Applicant to appear in person or through an authorized representative. The summons called upon the Applicant for the documents relevant to the case in ECIR pertaining to the Applicant. The Applicant duly complied with the summons by appearing through his authorized representative. With a reply, the Applicant asked for a copy of the ECIR and the list of documents. On the same date, the Personal Secretary of the Applicant Mr. Palande and Personal As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch summons is being issued, strengthening the apprehension that the investigation is not fair and is an abuse of power. f) On 9 August 2021, the provisional attachment order was also passed, and the ECIR was annexed to the complaint. Assuming the ECIR was an internal document, there was no reason why it was not shared when it was asked for on 26 June 2021. Respondent No.2 is being selective in sharing the ECIR. The incidents relied upon in the affidavit filed in this Petition will show that in some cases, ECIR is supplied even at the stage of remand. This arbitrary non-supply is a clear case of selectively attacking the Applicant; g) After the Supreme Court passed an order on 16 August 2021 granting liberty to the Applicant and knowing that the Applicant will approach this Court, a summons was issued on 16 August 2021. The summons was issued even without waiting for the text of the order to be uploaded, and this was a clear attempt to scuttle the Applicant's attempt to approach this Court. h) When the first summons was issued, the Applicant was asked to bring documents relating to ECIR, and the ECIR was never shared with the Applicant. Even the list of documents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, which states that during the search, the officers identified and recovered miscellaneous documents compiled in a pink coloured file containing 53 pages, and it was stated that the same was required in the course of further investigation. This is the material referred to. The first summons was issued to the Applicant on the same day. By this summons, the Applicant was not asked to appear in person. The Respondent-Directorate gave an option to the Applicant to appear through an authorized representative, which shows their bona fides. The Applicant, however, responded on 26 June 2021 that unless ECIR is given, it would not be possible for him to give the documents. The learned ASG is right in contending that by that time, the Applicant was aware that search was carried out, panchanama was drawn, and what was the material. The summons was in respect of the same search. The Respondent- Directorate, in the course of the investigation, then issued a second summons wherein it was made clear to the Applicant that the Applicant should remain present in connection with the evidence collected and the statements recorded. The Applicant gave a lengthy reply and again reiterated that he should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as shared belatedly. The argument was not based on the contents of the ECIR. The argument was that in other cases, the ECIR was supplied even at the remand stage, and without any reason, it was withheld from the Applicant. Secondly, on the allegations of malafides that certain vested interests who themselves are guilty in heinous crime are behind the predicate offence; it was not made clear what heinous offence they have committed and how, and the details of these allegations have not been elaborated in the Petition. We have referred to the legal position regarding the pleadings in the earlier paragraphs. The pleadings are bereft of any particulars. This Court is called upon to engage in guess work to presume malafides against the Directorate. 29. The Applicant argued that on 1 October 2021, when the matter was pending in this Court, a complaint was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for an offence under section 174 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant submitted that this is one more facet of malice wherein even though there is a specific section, i.e. section 63 of the PMLA, which makes non-compliance of direction to appear pursuant to summons punishable, which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eral Assembly calling upon the member States to enact money laundering legislation. The statement of object and reasons of the PMLA underscores the importance of taking effective steps to curb the menace of money laundering, which is no longer restricted to any geopolitical boundary. The scheme of the PMLA not only confers powers on the authorities under the Act to take steps to curb money laundering but casts a duty upon them to take effective steps. Therefore, unless it is demonstrated that the authorities under the PMLA were proceeding beyond their jurisdiction or in contravention of any restraint order by the court, issuance of summons by the authorities when there was no restraint order by the court cannot be considered as mala fide. 32. Nothing is shown to us as to how the ongoing investigation was either beyond the jurisdiction or was illegal. The Applicant s argument that the investigation under the PMLA in the present case cannot go beyond the proceeds of crime identified in the schedule, and predicate offence, is without merit. This ground is taken in the Petition; however, how exactly the proceedings are beyond the predicate offence ought to have been demonstrated bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erit in the case of the Applicant in support of prayer clause (a) to quash the impugned Summonses issued to the Applicant by Respondent No.2 under Section 50 of the PMLA. 36. Now, we turn to prayer clause (b), which is a direction to the Respondent- Directorate not to take coercive steps pursuant to the ECIRs in question. As stated earlier, this prayer is also based primarily on the charge of malice on the part of the Respondent-Directorate in issuing summonses. 37. On the submission based on the application of sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C., the Applicant has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Vakamulla Chandrashekar v. Enforcement Directorate 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12810 . In this decision, the Delhi High Court held that provision of Cr.P.C. shall apply in so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions of the PMLA to arrest, search, seizure and investigation and other proceedings under the Act. The Division Bench held that there is nothing in the scheme of the PMLA that sections 41 and 41A of Cr.P.C. would not apply to the exercise of the power of arrest under section 19 of the PMLA, and the PMLA does not impliedly ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich the High Court and the lower courts in this country must be alive. It is the duty of courts across the spectrum the district judiciary, the High Courts and the Supreme Court to ensure that the criminal law does not become a weapon for the selective harassment of citizens. Courts should be alive to both ends of the spectrum they need to ensure the proper enforcement of criminal law on the one hand and the need, on the other, of ensuring that the law does not become a ruse for targeted harassment. 39. The learned ASG, on the other hand, has drawn our attention to the facts under which observations were made in the case of Arnab Goswami, which are narrated from paragraphs-5 to 19 of the decision, to contend that the observation of the Supreme Court were in the facts of that in that case where the High Court had failed to exercise its powers. In the case of Arnab Goswami, the appellant was a TV journalist who had broadcast certain material raising issues which, according to him, were not palatable to political parties ruling the State. The FIR filed in the year 2018 was closed by submitting a Closure Report in the year 2019, which the learned Magistrate also accepted. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court while passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/ or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection. Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order of not to arrest or no coercive steps to be adopted and the accused should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or till the final report/chargesheet is filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C., while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (emphasis supplied) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while granting the order akin to anticipatory bail. The learned ASG has also drawn our attention to the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.6/2021 wherein the Division Bench, while directing preliminary enquiry by the CBI, about the political influence of the Applicant. 44. The Supreme court, in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd., has laid down that the High Court shall not pass the order of not to arrest and/or no coercive steps while dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As we have concluded that no case is made out by the Applicant on facts for the exercise of jurisdiction under 482 of the Cr.P.C., this dicta of the Supreme Court will be applicable. In the order dated 16 August 2021, the Supreme Court has referred to the remedies available to the Applicant under the Cr.P.C., which includes section 438 for anticipatory bail. We have not been shown any reason as to why the Applicant cannot take recourse to this remedy by approaching the competent court, like any other person apprehending arrest. It is obvious if the Applicant intends to avail of thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicant in person, is rejected and it is left to the discretion of the Directorate of Enforcement as regards the mode. 47. As regards prayer (d) as to the direction to the Directorate to act in a transparent manner and not to misuse the power, it is not a specific prayer. Even if it could be considered, it must be first demonstrated that there is an arbitrary exercise of power, which the Applicant has not established. As regards prayer clauses (f) and (g) are concerned, they relate to arrest of the Applicant and prayers as regards not to take coercive steps, which aspect we have already dealt with. Also, for prayer Clauses (d), (e) and (f), this would arise under Section 19 of the PMLA, which stage, as pointed out by the learned ASG, has not arisen. 48. As regards the part of prayer clause (h) that the statement of the Applicant be recorded in the presence of his advocate and the advocate be permitted to be present at the time of questioning at a distance, the Applicant relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey v. Union of India WP (Crl.) No.28/2012 decided on 16 April 2012. In this decision, the Supreme Court observed thus: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was rendered in Poolpandi's case (supra) by a Bench of Three Judges, was in the context of the direct involvement of the learned counsel during the actual interrogation where the lawyer assumed an active role during the interrogation. On the other hand, the order that has been sought, as passed in various matters, does not contemplate such an eventuality. In fact, in terms of the orders which we have earlier passed, a lawyer has no role to play whatsoever during the interrogation, except to be at a distance beyond hearing range to ensure that no coercive methods were used during the interrogation. Accordingly, we allow the criminal miscellaneous petition and direct that the petitioner s advocate should be allowed to be present during the interrogation of the petitioners but that he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible range and the Lawyer must be prepared to be present whenever the petitioners are called upon to attend such interrogation. The criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. The learned ASG sought to contend that the order passed in the case of Birendra Kumar Pandey is per incuriam in the light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent during the interrogation of the Petitioner. It was further directed that he should be made to sit at a distance beyond hearing range, but within visible distance and the lawyer must be prepared to be present whenever the petitioners are called upon to attend such investigation. Similar is the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Cr.WP No.1664/2017 on 5 May 2017 . There are, therefore series of such directions. 50. Though it is sought to be contended by the learned ASG that we should ignore the above referred orders and also hold the decision in Birendra Kumar Pandey as per incuriam, it is not possible to do so. As stated earlier, the decision in Birendra Kumar Pandey has, after referring to the decisions in Poolpandi and Jugal Kishore Samara, issued directions regarding the lawyer's presence. Whenever such prayers have come before the court for consideration, both in Apex Court and in this Court, the counsel for Directorate of Enforcement has taken the stand that allowing lawyers presence as above is the position of law. We find no reason as to why this legal position be deviated in the case of the present Applicant. This does not interfere with the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said remedy by approaching the competent court on its own merits. The observations in this judgment in that regard are in the context of jurisdiction under section 482 of Cr.P.C. The legal question of applicability of certain provisions of Cr.P.C. to the investigation under the PMLA, upon which these prayers are based, is under consideration of the Supreme Court in the petition filed by the Applicant, and we are not called upon to decide these legal issues. As regards prayer for transfer of investigation to a special investigating team, in view of the finding that the Applicant has failed to establish factual or legal malice in the investigation carried out by the Respondent- Directorate, the prayer for transfer cannot be considered. As regards the part of prayer regarding audio/ video-graphing of CCTV camera is concerned, the same is not shown to fall under any of the provisions of the PMLA. As regards the prayer of the presence of the Applicant's lawyer at a visible distance (beyond audible range) during questioning, the same is justified. 52. To conclude, the Applicant has failed to make out a case for exercise of jurisdiction under 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
