2023 (3) TMI 301 - HC - Money Laundering

Court dismisses revision application, imposes cost for forum shopping. Enforcement Directorate directed to transport petitioner by air.

Anubrata Mondal @ Kesto Versus The Directorate of Enforcement

The court dismissed the revision application, finding it not maintainable and lacking merit. The court directed that if the Enforcement Directorate takes ... Money Laundering - issuance of production warrant - Jurisdiction of the Trial Court and also the authority of the Head Investigation Unit (HIU), Enforcement Directorate to investigate into the matter - HELD THAT:- Petitioner’s case is that the Enforcement Directorate orally assured the Hon’ble Bench at Delhi High Court that they would not execute production warrant issued against the petitioner by the Trial Court on 19th December, 2022. Such assurance was not recorded in any of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Judges at Delhi High Court in different proceedings. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on a report published by “Live Law” in support of his contention. Though it is needless to say that this Court cannot take judicial notice on publication of certain news in an Online News Portal, it is pertinent to mention that the said report states that the ED gave an oral assurance to Delhi High Court that it would not execute the production warrant against the petitioner till 9th January, 2023. There is absolutely no record that after 9th January, the opposite party renewed such oral assurance before any judicial forum. In the instant case, the petitioner was sent to District Hospital, Asansol on 2nd March, 2023 when he complained of his illness. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General on instruction that the petitioner has been discharged from the hospital. Therefore, it is presumed that there is no acute reason to hold that the petitioner is unfit by reason of his sickness from being removed to Delhi. Since Section 482 can only be invoked to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Code or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, it is found from the pleadings and the relief sought for by the petitioner that the petitioner has been trying to obstruct the process of the Court. This is not the only instance. The petitioner repeatedly filed series of applications to resist the Enforcement Directorate from executing production warrant issued against him - Since there is no order of stay of execution of production warrant dated 19/20th December, 2022 by any judicial forum, and the impugned order is absolutely interlocutory in nature, there are no merit in the instant revision. The revisional application being not maintainable, fails. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court2. Execution of Production Warrant3. Allegations of Forum Shopping4. Health Condition of the Petitioner5. Legality and Propriety of Orders from Lower CourtsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Trial Court:The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Trial Court at Delhi and the authority of the Head Investigation Unit (HIU), Enforcement Directorate to investigate the matter. This challenge was filed as a writ petition before the High Court at Delhi, which is still pending. The Delhi High Court's order on 15th December 2022 noted that the Special Judge, PC Act, Rouse Avenue was yet to determine the merits of the application, including the issue of jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that without deciding the jurisdiction, the petitioner could not be directed to be produced before the Trial Court at Delhi.2. Execution of Production Warrant:The petitioner contended that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had orally assured the Delhi High Court that they would not execute the production warrant until January 9, 2023. The petitioner relied on a report from 'Live Law' to support this claim. However, the court noted that there was no record of such assurance being renewed after January 9, 2023. The Superintendent of Asansol Correctional Home received an email from the Additional Director, HIU, New Delhi, directing the production of the petitioner in the Trial Court at Delhi. The Special Judge, CBI, Asansol allowed this request, which the petitioner challenged. The court found that the impugned order was interlocutory in nature and not revisable.3. Allegations of Forum Shopping:The Deputy Solicitor General argued that the petitioner was engaging in 'Forum Shopping' by filing similar applications in different courts to obtain a favorable order. The petitioner had filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before the Delhi High Court, seeking to stay the production warrant, which was not granted. The petitioner then moved the instant application, suppressing the undertaking given by his Advocate at the Delhi High Court. The court cited precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority, Bombay Vs. Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd. & Ors., and Kamini Jaiswal Vs. Union of India & Anr., to highlight the issue of forum shopping and its various forms.4. Health Condition of the Petitioner:The petitioner argued that he was seriously ill and should not be taken to Delhi on health grounds. Section 269 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the Officer-in-Charge of the prison to abstain from carrying out the court's order if the person is unfit to be removed due to sickness. The petitioner was sent to District Hospital, Asansol, on 2nd March 2023, but was later discharged. The court presumed that there was no acute reason to hold that the petitioner was unfit to be removed to Delhi.5. Legality and Propriety of Orders from Lower Courts:The court examined the legality, validity, and propriety of the orders dated 2nd March 2023 passed by the Special Judge, CBI Court, Asansol. The court found that the impugned order was interlocutory and did not decide or touch upon the rights and liabilities of the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had been trying to obstruct the process of the court by filing multiple applications to resist the ED from executing the production warrant. The court also observed that the State Police Administration was engaged to prevent the execution of the production warrant, as evidenced by the registration of a criminal case on the same day the production warrant was issued.Conclusion:The court dismissed the revision application, finding it not maintainable and lacking merit. The court directed that if the ED takes the petitioner to Delhi, he should be transported by air, accompanied by a Medical Officer, and examined by medical professionals both before and after the journey. The court imposed a compensatory cost of Rs.1,00,000/- on the petitioner for engaging in forum shopping and filing successive, harassing applications.