2022 (2) TMI 63 - HC - Money Laundering

High Court dismisses challenge to refusal of extended Enforcement Directorate custody, stresses need for well-founded remand application.

Directorate of Enforcement Versus Sukhpal Singh Khaira

The High Court dismissed the petition challenging the order declining further Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody for the accused. The Court held that ... Money Laundering - complete prohibition against the transposition of the accused from judicial to police custody or not - extension of remand for further 7 days - Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- On applying the doctrine of relating back, for ably facilitating this Court, to test the validity of the impugned order, the running of the spell of 15 days from 11.11.2021, cannot be taken to become halted or paused, only by the making of the impugned order, rather when through a valid interference being made, qua it, by this Court, the broken spell of E.D custody becomes reanimated, and, lasts upto the spell of 15 days, to be reckoned since the date of initial production of the accused before the remanding Court concerned, becoming completed. In consequence, the arguments addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are accepted, and, the arguments, addressed before this Court, by the learned counsel for the respondent-accused, are rejected. A reading of the impugned order, unfolds that even prior to the accused being arrested, he had been repeatedly summoned on 11 occasions, by the Enforcement Directorate, and, it also reveals that during the afore period of time, 88 hours were spent by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate with the respondent-accused. Moreover, a reading of the impugned order also details, that the accused-respondent, had argued before the Court concerned, while making opposition to the demand of the Public Prosecutor, for his being put to E.D. custody, that in the previous 08 days, only 38 questions were put to him, and, that only 1½ hours, per day, became utilized by the officials of the Enforcement Directorate, to interrogate him. The afore echoings borne in the impugned order, coupled with the factum that the learned Court concerned, has also traversed through all the relevant records appertaining to the bank accounts, and, statements of all concerned, rather naturally and tenably led the/remanding Court, to make a valid conclusion, that the claim for police remand, as made by the Special Public Prosecutor concerned, was unmeritworthy. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Legality of further remand to Enforcement Directorate (ED) custody.2. Interpretation of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni.4. Validity of the impugned order declining further ED custody.5. Allegations of non-cooperation and evasiveness by the accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of Further Remand to Enforcement Directorate (ED) Custody:The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) sought further remand of the accused for seven days, which was declined by the learned Court on 18.11.2021. The ED challenged this order, arguing that the total period of police custody under Section 167 Cr.P.C. should be computed from the date of initial production and should last up to 15 days. The respondent-accused contended that the total period of ED custody had already extended to 8 days, and post 15 days, only judicial custody is permissible.2. Interpretation of Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):The respondent-accused argued that Section 167 Cr.P.C. mandates that the total period of police custody cannot exceed 15 days. The learned Additional Solicitor General countered that interruptions or halts in police custody, such as judicial custody periods, do not affect the statutory computation of the 15-day period. The High Court held that the relevant stage for computing whether there is an untenable transposition from judicial to police custody is the incipient stage, i.e., upon the initial production of the accused before the Court.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court's Judgment in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni:The respondent-accused relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Anupam J. Kulkarni, which states that after the expiry of the first period of 15 days, further remand during the investigation can only be in judicial custody. The High Court analyzed the facts of the Kulkarni case and concluded that the initial request for judicial custody by the CBI and subsequent attempts to transpose it to police custody were deprecated by the Supreme Court. The High Court distinguished the facts at hand from the Kulkarni case, noting that the accused was initially put to police custody and not judicial custody.4. Validity of the Impugned Order Declining Further ED Custody:The High Court examined whether the impugned order was ridden with any vices of illegality or gross impropriety. The Court noted that the accused had been repeatedly summoned and interrogated by the ED for 88 hours over 11 occasions. The Court found that the Special Public Prosecutor's claim for further police remand was unmeritworthy, as the ED had ample opportunity to interrogate the accused but failed to utilize the time effectively.5. Allegations of Non-Cooperation and Evasiveness by the Accused:The petitioner argued that the accused was evasive in his answers during custodial interrogation, citing the Supreme Court's judgment in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement. The High Court rejected this argument, noting that no notes or case diaries were presented to support the claim of evasiveness, and the application for remand lacked detailed grounds. The Court concluded that the application was cast in a perfunctory and mechanical mould, rather than the required iron cast.Conclusion:The High Court dismissed the petition, maintaining the impugned order. The Court held that the facts of the case did not warrant further ED custody and that the arguments presented by the petitioner were unmeritworthy. The Court emphasized the need for a detailed and well-founded application for remand, which was lacking in this case.