9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 1311X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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, spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e 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. 4. It is submitted by the petitioners that in the matter concerning illegal coal mining in the State of West Bengal, an FIR No. RC0102020A0022 dated 27.11.2020 was registered by the CBI, Kolkata against certain known and unknown officials of Eastern Coalfield Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as ECL ], CISF, Railway, other departments and certain known and unknown private persons for alleged commission of a cognizable offence U/s. 120B, 409 of the IPC and Section 13(2) r/w section 13 (1)(a) of the P.C. Act, 1988. 5. It is further submitted by the petitioners that as per the FIR, it has been revealed that illegal excavation and theft of coal is being done by criminal elements from the leasehold area of ECL in active connivance of the officials of ECL, CISF, and Indian Railways and concerned other departments. It is further submitted that during joint inspection conducted by Vigilance Department and Task Force of ECL on several leasehold areas of ECL from May, 2020 and onwards, evidence of extensive illegal mining in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g IOs. It is further submitted that during scrutiny of record received from the Income Tax department, which were seized by them during searches conducted at various premises of Shri Anup Majee his associates in November, 2020, it is revealed as under: a. Shri Niraj Singh, Kolkata based accountant of Shri Anup Majee used to maintain the records for the proceeds of crime [hereinafter referred to as the POC ] generated from the illegal coal mining business operation and only in the span of less than two years (21 months-July, 2018 to December, 2019), POC to the tune of ₹ 1,352 Crores have been generated from illegal coal mining business. It is further submitted that the said POC was used to be distributed amongst coal mafias, political leaders and other officers. b. Evidence in form of statements under section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 revealed that as per direction of Shri Vinay Mishra, Shri Anup Majee and his associates collected huge amounts, which was generated through illegal coal business and illegally delivered the same to various persons as per directions of Shri Vinay Mishra, Shri Vikas Mishra @ Chotu and Shri Ashok Mishra (Inspector Incharge of Bankura Police ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IR No. 33 dated 05.04.2021, against a News Channel under Sections 171G, 466, 469, 474, 500, 501, 504 read with Section 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( FIR ) which had been registered at Kalighat P.S. Kolkata. 13. It is stated that petitioner No. 1 issued summons to Abhishek Banerjee who is complainant of the instant FIR, on 22.07.2021, 04.08.2021 and 18.08.2021 for appearance on 03.08.2021, 12.08.2021 and 06.09.2021 respectively. It is further submitted that Shri Abhishek Banerjee only appeared on 06.09.2021. 14. It is stated that subsequently, the impugned notices dated 21.08.2021 and 22.07.2021 have been issued by the respondents under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. to the petitioner's 2-4 who are stationed and posted in Delhi. The petitioners have provided a table of the notices received in this regard and the date of the reply of the petitioners regarding the same and the present petition has been filed by the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned notices issued by the Kolkata Police. 15. I have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and perused the records of this case and the status report filed during the course of arguments. 16. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the notices issued under Section 160 (1) of Cr.P.C. can only be issued to a person who is within the local jurisdiction of that police station or is within the jurisdiction or any adjoining police station. He further submitted that in the present case, the petitioners are posted in Delhi which is clearly outside the jurisdiction of respondent police officers and police station. Specific reliance in this regard was placed on the judgment in Ravinder Singh V. State and Anr., W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010 And Crl. M.A. Nos. 8234-8235/2010, order dated 27.07.2010; T Purshotam V. Circle Inspector of Police Ors. 1997 Cri. L.J. 4011 (Andhra Pradesh); Krishan Bans Bhadur Anr. V. The State of H.P. 1975 Cri. L.J. 620 (Himachal Pradesh); Mathews Peter V. Asst. Police Inspector Ors. 2002 Cri. L.J. 1585 (Andhra Pradesh) and M/s. Pusma Investment Pvt. Ltd. Ors. V. State of Meghalaya Ors. 2010 Cri. L.J. 56 (Gauhati). 19. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submitted that notices can only be issued to persons who are either the accused or the witnesses and since the present petitioner's agency or any of its officers have neither been named in the FIR as accused and are al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e judgment in Anant Brahmachari (supra) would not apply to the present case as it concerned an investigation under the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 which admittedly has pan-India jurisdiction. 25. At this stage, it is clarified that only a prima facie opinion is required to be formed. While the petitioners have raised various wide ranging issues concerning the manner of registration of FIR and malafides, at present, the issues that arise for consideration, can be mentioned as under: a. Whether the Respondents have the power under Section 160 Cr.P.C. to issue the impugned notices? b. Whether the present petition is maintainable in view of the Directorate of Enforcement being Petitioner No. 1? c. Whether this Court has the jurisdiction to quash the impugned notices in view of objection raised as to the territorial jurisdiction? d. Whether the Petitioners have made out a case for any interim relief? 26. In order to appreciate the first issue, it is necessary to take note of the text of Section 160 Cr.P.C. Section 160 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows: 160. Police officer's power to require attendance of witnesses. (1) Any police office ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g police station. I, therefore, consider that summons issued to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in Delhi, which is not adjoining police station of Rewari is without jurisdiction and the notice is, therefore, quashed. 28. I am, therefore, prima facie inclined to agree with the dictum in Ravinder Singh (supra). Therefore, 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. 29. The next issue is with regard to the maintainability of the petition filed by the Directorate of Enforcement. It has been argued that the Petitioner No. 1 being the State itself, cannot maintain a writ petition under Article 226. It may however be noted that the petition has been filed and affirmed also by petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 who are natural persons and also petitioners in the present case being the actual aggrieved persons. In view of the same, I find no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
