TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (1) TMI 833
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng Act, 2002 (for short, the 'PMLA'). The ancillary challenge is further to the summons issued to the petitioners by the officers of the ED under Section 50 (2) & (3) of the PMLA on the ground that the offences are non-cognizable in nature and in the absence of any prior sanction/order of a Magistrate, the investigation being conducted by the said authorities, is not justified. Prayer has also been made that if the offences are cognizable, then investigation be done by some other authorities/officers, appointed/authorized than respondents No.2 to 4 and direct examination and recording of statement of the petitioners in the presence of their Advocate. Videography be conducted during the examination and recording of the statements of the petitioners and for quashing the action of the respondents, seizing the bank accounts of the petitioners. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are investigating the matter in ECIR No.CDZO/05 dated 25/03/2013, relating to FIR No.4 dated 22.07.2009, lodged at Police Station (Vigilance) Chandigarh under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 201, 120B IPC and 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, registered again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Petitioner No.8 is a practising Advocate since the year 2006 and summons had been sent to him and he had also filed application for grant of anticipatory bail along with petitioner Nos.3 & 4. Petitioner No.9 is stated to be the real brother of petitioner No.4 and running his business at Village Suhin, Tehsil Rakkar, District Kangra. It was, accordingly, alleged that the said petitioners were nowhere connected or involved in any manner in the FIR registered by the U.T. Police and with the impugned ECIR and the officers of the respondent-ED had transgressed the circumscribed limits as well as illegally exercised investigating powers by assuming jurisdiction in a completely unlawful manner. 5. The investigation was, thus, challenged on various grounds, to which, we will advert to later and thus, the authority of the ED was challenged, including the seizure of accounts. It was pleaded that initially it was provided that the offences were to be cognizable and non-bailable but vide the amendment in the year 2005 the offence under the Act was made non-cognizable and only a complaint could be lodged. The investigation could not be carried out of a non-cognizable offence without the or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and had no source of income. The investigation showed that petitioners no. 4 to 6 and petitioner No.9 along with one Ajay Singh, petitioner in CWP No.1418 of 2015, had floated shell companies which were seven in number and the details of which are given as under: "1. Shivalik Services & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 2. Mount Hills Services & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 3. Sharvila Builder and Developers Pvt. Ltd. 4. Awasthi Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. 5. Lake View Services & Promoters Pvt. Ltd. 6. Radhey Sham Saree Centre Pvt. Ltd. 7. Solan SR Services Pvt. Ltd." 7. Ajay Singh had signed most of the documents whereas petitioner No.8 was junior of Mr.Mukesh Mittal, who was the mastermind of illegal sale of SCF No.8, Sector 20, Chandigarh relating to Mr.Tara Singh. All the documents relating to the said SCF were prepared in the office of Mr.Mukesh Mittal and most of the documents were signed by Mr.Ajay Singh. Number of documents pertaining to one bigha of land situated in Kandaghat area of Himachal Pradesh and transactions of crores of rupees were found during the search from the premises of Mr.Mukesh Mittal and Vineet Goyal-petitioner no. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oner No.8 was stated to be a practising Lawyer and had signed most of the documents prepared in the office of Mr.Mukesh Mittal, including the document giving the attorney to Mr.Harnek Singh. He had also not appeared with the required documents and had also withdrawn his application for anticipatory bail. 10. In reply to the legal issues raised, it was pleaded that the Act was a complete statute and giving power to the Director, Deputy Director or Assistant Director to investigate the offence of money laundering and the same is cognizable and non-bailable, as per Section 45. The Police Officers were barred from investigating into the offence under the Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government by its general and special order. The provisions of Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the 'Cr.P.C.') were inapplicable, in view of Section 71 of the PMLA Act which had an overriding effect on any other law and Special Courts had been set up to deal with the offences under Sections 3 & 4, which is the Court of Sessions. The Court of Judicial Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue permission to investigate. As per the provisions of the Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and documents and account had been seized under the reasons to believe. It was denied that petitioner No.4 was not disclosing his correct address and the address was given of Kharar and that he was also residing in Chandigarh. The FIR No.5 registered against Mr.Ajay Singh was baseless and this Court had stayed proceedings in the said case and the officials were inflicting torture and third degree methods on the petitioners. 13. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Sr. counsel has accordingly raised two legal submissions on the basis of the above facts and pleadings. It is his contention that the PMLA initially provided that the offences under the Act were to be cognizable and non-bailable, however, in view of the amendment w.e.f. 01.07.2005, the offences have been made non-cognizable and the Special Court can only take cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 4 upon a complaint in writing made by the authorized officers. It is accordingly submitted that the investigation which is thus in progress and the summoning of the petitioners by the officers of the E.D. is without jurisdiction in the absence of any complaint having been filed before the Special Court. Reliance has been placed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been denied as copies of documents etc. are not readily available. Accordingly, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mahajan and another, AIR 1994 SC 1775 (1) to submit that the enforcement officers were not empowered to file a final report whereas the police officers could do so. Reliance was also placed upon the directions issued by the Apex Court in D.K. Basu vs. State of Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610 (1) to contend that principles of arrest and detention had been laid down and the same were openly being violated in the present case by the officials of the E.D. Reference was also made to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari vs. Government of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) SCC 1 to submit that principles were laid down that for a cognizable offence to be made out, the FIR was to be registered before investigation and to ensure that there is a judicial check provided on the authorities and the word "shall" in Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. provided that it was mandatory to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is made out. But in the present case, neither any such FIR has been registered and the lodging o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ating into an offence under the Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government by general or special order and subject to certain conditions as per Section 45(1)(a). It was accordingly submitted that under Sections 3 and 4, where any person was involved in the process of the proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession and acquisition, he would be guilty of the offence of money laundering if he was claiming it as untainted property. Section 4 provided that the punishment for money laundering was not to be less than 3 years which may extend to 7 years and accordingly, the Cr.P.C. was relied upon to submit that once the sentence was more than 3 years, the offence would be cognizable as such. 17. In order to rebut the second contention raised by senior counsel for the petitioner, reliance was placed upon Section 73 of the PMLA which provided for making of the Rules. Reliance was made to the various Rules framed under the Act which pertain to the provisional attachment of properties and supply of reasons, receipts to be issued and the management of confiscated properties, the maintenance of the records and the forwarding of reasons to the adjudicating author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of such property. The scheduled offences have been defined under Section 2(y) and admittedly, Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 are part of the scheduled offences as described under part A of the schedule. Section 2(p), 2(u), 3 and 4 reads thus:- 2(p) "money-laundering" has the meaning assigned to it in section 3; 2(u) "Proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property." 3. Offence of money-laundering.-Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected [proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming] it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money-laundering. 4. Punishment for money-laundering.-Whoever commits the offence of money-laundering shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine [***] Provided that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Section 19 provides power of arrest again on the reason to believe which have to be recorded in writing on the basis of the material in possession. The said reasons thereafter have to be forwarded to the adjudicating authority under sub-clause (2) and the person arrested is to be taken to the Judicial Magistrate within 24 hours or a Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction. The said Section reads thus:- "19. Power to arrest.- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such person and shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) The Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director or any other officer shall, immediately after arrest of such person under sub-section (1), forward a copy of the order, along with the material in his possession, referred to in that sub-section, to the Adjudicating Authority, in a sealed en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he freezing is to continue during the pendency of the proceedings and the petitioners, thus, have an alternative remedy before the said authorities pertaining to the dispute of attachment and seizure to which ancillary challenge has been raised and admittedly, notices had been issued for putting in appearance. 25. This Court in a connected matter in CWP No. 21705 of 2014, Sudeep Kaur Sawhney vs. Union of India and others decided on 19.05.2015 has already relegated the petitioner therein to an alternative and efficacious remedy before the authorities. The claim of the petitioner therein on the issue as to whether the attachment order was liable to be set aside on account of the fact that period of more than 30 days had expired under Section 17(4) from the date of the freezing of the accounts was rejected. Thus, the petitioners have an alternative and efficacious remedy as such before the said authorities as disputed questions arise as to the source of funds, which is to be decided by the authorities and whether the money is part of the proceeds of crime. It is settled principle that this Court is not to go into the disputed questions of facts which arise as the petitioners would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith imprisonment for 3 years, and upwards but not more than 7 years Cognizable Non-bailable Magistrate of the first class If punishable with imprisonment for less than 3 years or with fine only Non-cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate 30. Thus, the argument which is being sought to be raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the offences are now only bailable in view of the amendment and non-cognizable cannot be accepted as the petitioners are covered under Section 4 of the Act. Chapter V, as noticed above, provides the power of summons, searches and seizures as per the investigation which has been carried out and the same is to be done by the authorities appointed under the Act to the exclusion of the police officers under Section 45(1A) until duly authorized. Section 19 further provides the powers of arrest upon the reasons to believe and to be recorded in writing. The investigation, for the purposes of money laundering for the collection of evidence gives the power to the authorities to arrest. The definition of the cognizable offence provided under Section 2(c) of the Cr.P.C. reads thus:- (c) "cognizable offence" means an offenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gnizance for the offence punishable under the Act shall be taken only upon a complaint made by an authority authorized in that behalf under the Act. Further Section 45 of the Act put restrictions in the release of the persons on bail unless conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled. It further provides that special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence under section 4 except on a complaint made by the Director or any Officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. Sub- Section (1-A) of Section 45 specifically provides that notwithstanding the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under the Act unless specifically authorized by the Central Government by a general or special order. The provisions of the Act has been given over-riding effect upon any other law and further categorically mentioned that any provision of Code of Criminal Procedure which are inconsistent with the provision of the this Act which deals with attachment, confiscation, investigation and prosecution etc. shall not apply. There is no provision in the Act which is a special statute for filing of police report. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force." 38. Sections 44 and 46 read together would go on to show that a complaint has to be made by the authorities before the Special Court by the authority authorized and the Special Court can take cognizance of the offence under Section 3 without the accused being committed to it for trial. Section 46 further provides that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court. Sections 44 and 46 of the PMLA read thus:- "44. Offences triable by Special Courts.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),- [(a) an offence punishable under section 4 and any scheduled offence connected to the offence under that section shall be triable by the Special Court constituted for the area in which the offence has been committed: Provided that the Special Court, trying a scheduled offence before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to try such scheduled offence; or] (b) a Special Court may, [***] upon a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of clause (u) of section 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the provisions of that Code shall have effect accordingly." 39. The Special Court as notified under Section 43 is to be the Sessions Judge of various divisions and for separate revenue districts as per the notification issued by the Central Government after consultation with the Chief Justice of this Court. Thus, it is apparent that the offence under Section 3 as per the first schedule of Cr.P.C. would be a cognizable offence and a non-bailable offence and Special Court would only take cognizance of the offence upon the complaint made by the authorities under the Act in writing in view of the provisions of the Act. A reading of Section 46 would rather go on to show that it has been specifically provided that Cr.P.C. would apply to the proceedings before the Special Court for the purposes of bails or bonds. Thus, it would be apparent that it is at this stage the procedure prescribed under the Code would come into play for the limited purpose where a person has been taken into custody by the authorized officers under the Act and produced before the competent Court, who will, then proceed to decide t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Mr. Vikram Chaudhary thus that there is an implied repeal in view of the amendment and the offence under Sections 3 and 4 is non-cognizable and also bailable as per the amended Section 45 is untenable. The said section only provides that persons who are accused of the offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for more than 3 years under part A of the Schedule would have to satisfy the conditions laid down before bail is granted to them by the Special Court. The petitioners are admittedly not those accused who are accused of the offences under Part A, proceedings against whom are already pending separately. 43. The said argument cannot be accepted as if the offence is to be bailable, it would have specifically been provided so by the Legislature. The doctrine of implied repeal was subject matter of consideration of the Apex Court in Harshad S. Mehta and others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2001 (8) SCC 257. The Apex Court dealt with the issue as to whether the Special Court had the inherent power to grant pardon. The argument raised was that it was excluded by necessary implication as there was no such provision in the Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transacti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Relying upon statutory interpretation by Francis Bennion (1984 Edition), counsel contends that where, as in the present case, the provisions of the later enactment (the Act) are contrary to those of the earlier (the Code), the later by implication repeals the earlier in accordance with the maxim leges posteriores priores contrerios abrogant (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws). This is, however, subject to the exception embodied in the maxim generatia specialitous non derogant (a general provision does not derogate from a special one). One of the important test to determine the issue of implied repeal would be whether the provisions of the Act are irreconcilably inconsistent with those of the Code that the two cannot stand together or the intention of the legislature was only to supplement the provisions of the Code. This intention is to be ascertained from the provisions of the Act. Courts lean against implied repeal. If by any fair interpretation both the statutes can stand together, there will be no implied repeal. If possible implied repeal shall be avoided. It is, however, correct that the presumption against the intent to repeal by implication is overthrown if the new ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e judgment in Bhajan Lal's case (supra) would not be applicable in view of the findings recorded since admittedly, the offences are punishable for more than 3 years and in such case, it would be a cognizable offence and the authorities under Section 19 would have the power to arrest in view of the special procedure prescribed under the Act. Similarly, the judgment in Kishan Lal Thakur's case (supra) would not be applicable since it pertained to the police registering the case under Section 31 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950, which was a non-cognizable offence. 47. The second issue raised that the petitioners have been prejudiced and that the authorities are acting as a law unto themselves and that the procedure provided under Chapter 12 of the Cr.P.C. has to be followed has partly been answered against the petitioners in view of the provisions of Sections 65 and 71 while answering the first issue. Sections 4 and 5 of Cr.P.C. specifically provide that offences under any other law shall be investigated and dealt with in accordance with the same provisions but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation. Simila....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ereof substantially satisfying all the required basic conditions contained therein and that consequent upon such replacement of sub-section (1) of Section 167, the arrested person under those special Acts would be an accused person to be detained by the Magistrate under subsection (2) of Section 167. In passing, it may be stated that there is no expression 'police officer' deployed in Section 167(1) nor does it appear in any part of Section 167 (2). The authority for detaining a person as contemplated under Section 167(2) is in aid of investigation to be carried on by any prosecuting agency who is invested with the power of investigation. xx xx xx xx 115. It should not be lost sight of the fact that a police officer making an investigation of an offence representing the State files a report under Section 173 of the Code and becomes the complainant whereas the prosecuting agency under the special Acts files a complaint as a complainant i.e. under Section 61(ii) in the case of FERA and under Section 137 of the Customs Act. To say differently, the police officer after consummation of the investigation files a report under Section 173 of the Code upon which the Magistrate m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... can be found with the procedure which has been adopted by the respondents. 51. The Apex Court in Jeewan Kumar Raut and another vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2009 (7) SCC 526 also noticed that in an investigation conducted by the CBI under the Transplantation of Human Organs Act, 1994, (in short 'TOHO') a complaint had been filed in view of the specific provisions under the Special Act and the argument that the complaint petition was not maintainable and only a police report could have been filed due to the investigation conducted was rejected. Section 22 of the said Act was taken into consideration to notice that only a complaint could be filed by the appropriate authority. It was thus held that under special Statutes, investigation could be conducted and there was no provision to file a police report and a specific bar had been created by the Parliament. The relevant observations read thus:- "19. Section 22 of TOHO prohibits taking of cognizance except on a complaint made by an appropriate authority or the person who had made a complaint earlier to it as laid down therein. Respondent, although, has all the powers of an investigating agency, it expressly has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te of Punjab, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 56 also rejected a similar contention raised while placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Deepak Mahajan's case (supra) itself. The submission that the Narcotics Control Bureau (for short 'NCB') could not file a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge and the procedure under Chapter XII of the Cr.P.C. had to be followed was rejected by holding that the empowered officers of NCB are not police officers and are not bound to carry out the investigations under the Act. The relevant observations read thus:- "38. Apart from the police constituted under the Police Act, 1861, certain Officers of specified organizations have been invested powers of an Officerin-charge of a Police Station. With such conferment of powers, the investigation of the offences can be conducted by the officers, but such power of investigation is under a special Act and not under the Code. After such investigation, which is not any way analogous to the investigation carried out by police under Section 2 (h) of the Code, the empowered Officer can file a complaint in terms of Section 190 of the Code. 39. Though Section 193 of the Code prohibi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....closing the names of the witnesses along with the complaint is compliance of Chapter XV of the Code. The providing of different procedures for filing of compliant by the empowered officers and a report by the police cannot be said to discriminatory as both of these procedures is to enable the court to pronounce on the guilt of an accused. 41. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the argument that the empowered officers of the NCB under the Act are the police officers and are bound to carry investigations under the Act in accordance with Chapter XII of the Code after lodging of an FIR." 53. A perusal of the rules which have been framed under Section 73 (2)(ee), (f), (jj), (m), (n), (p) and (w) would go on to show that under subclause 2(ee) (f) and (m), the manner of seizing and taking possession of the property attached or frozen and the rules relating to search and seizure and the reasons and material referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 17 can be framed. Section 73(2)(ee), (f), (jj), (m), (n), (p) and (w) read thus:- "73. Power to make rules.-(1) The Central Government may, by notification, make rules for carrying out the provisions of this Act. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion), Rules, 2005 G The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Manner of Receiving the Records Authenticated Outside India) Rules, 2005 H The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Appeal) Rules, 2005 I The Adjudicating Authority (Procedure) Regulations, 2013 J The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Issuance of Provisional Attachment Order) Rules, 2013 K The Prevention of Money-Laundering (Taking Possession of Attached or Frozen Properties Confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority) Rules, 2013 55. The above said rules provide a specific procedure to be followed by the authorities for the purpose of the present case. As per Rule 5 of the rule mentioned at Sr. No. D which pertains to the Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the Manner of Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating Authority, Impounding and Custody of Records and the Period of Retention), the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are to apply in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act relating to Search and Seizure. Similarly, as per Rule 11, the Summoning Officer has to issue summons in Form V while exercising powers under sub-sections 2 and 3 of Section 50 of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....228 of the Indian Penal Code 2. Without prejudice to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force, if you fail to give evidence as mentioned in the schedule, you shall be liable to penal proceedings under the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003)." 56. It is not disputed that the summons issued to the petitioners which are subject matter of challenge are as per Form V. The petitioner has not challenged any of the rules or the sections of the Act and neither any challenge has been raised to the vires of the Act that it is violative of any procedure and that his fundamental rights under the Constitution are infringed. Thus, it is apparent that it is in pursuance of the statutory powers, the authorities have issued summons. 57. Similarly, under rule mentioned at Sr. No. E pertaining to the Prevention of Money-Laundering (The Forms and the Manner of Forwarding a Copy of Order of Arrest of a Person Along With the Material to the Adjudicating Authority and its Period of Retention), it has been specifically provided that the Arresting Officer shall prepare an index of the copy of the order and the material in possession and forward the index a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Moneylaundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003); NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under subsection (1) ofNOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred on me under subsection (1) of section 19 of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003), I hereby arrest the said .............................................. [name of the person arrested] at................ hours on .................. and he has been informed of the grounds for such arrest. Dated at ............ on this ............ day of ................. Two thousand ..................................... Arresting Officer Signature with Seal To ......................................... ......................................... [Name and complete address of the person arrested]" 59 Thus, from the above, it would be apparent that a complete procedure has been prescribed under the Act and the said Rules are not subject matter of challenge. In the absence of any challenge raised and in view of the detailed procedure prescribed and in view of the provisions of the Act, the argument whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....id down with such minute particularity in the sections themselves". 61. The view was thereafter followed by the Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, 1984 (2) SCC 500. It was held that once the Statute prescribed the certain method, the thing has to be done in that way or not at all. The relevant observations read thus:- "22. Once the contention on behalf of the appellant that investigation under Section 5-A is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings before a Special Judge and therefore cognizance of an offence cannot be taken except upon a police report, does not commend to us and has no foundation in law, it is unnecessary to refer to the long line of decisions commencing from Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch.D 426; Nazir Ahmad v. King-Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 and ending with Chettiam Veettil Ammad v. Taluk Land Board Air 1979 SC 1573, laying down hitherto uncontroverted legal principle that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden." 62 The Division Bench judgment in Rakesh Manekchand's case (supra) can b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions, as contended by the respondent. If those observations are taken to be a final decision, it may lead to every disadvantaged group or every citizen or every unemployed person, facing extreme hardship, approaching this Court or the High Court alleging human right violations and seeking a mandamus requiring the state, to provide him or them an allowance for meeting food, shelter, clothing, salary, medical treatment, and education, if not more. Surely that was not the intention of Kapila Hingorani (I) and Kapila Hingorani (II)." 63. In the present case, as noticed, the complaint has to be filed and with the investigation being at the initial stage the same cannot be quashed at a thresh hold in the absence of any legal bar provided under the Statute. 64. The ancillary prayers made for videography at the time of investigation in the presence of the advocate while recording statements thus is the only issue left for consideration in view of the above discussion. It is to be noticed that counsel for the respondent, vide order dated 19.03.2015, had undertaken that on the petitioners joining the investigation, they would have no objection to the interrogation/examination being vi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ad Bank Sector 8 14 Associates 50039903777 19507100 M/s. National The Oriental Sector 8 C Engineers and 15 Contractors 11154011000415 Bank of Commerce 56789284 M/s. Awasthi Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. 16 11151131001988 The Oriental Bank of Commerce Sector 8 C 82648235 M/s. Pushpak The Oriental Sector 21 C Landlinks 17 74411000898 Sh. Mukesh Mittal 18 11152191003707 Bank of Commerce The Oriental Bank of Commerce 112684287 Sector 8 C Chandigarh 98684332 Sh. Mukesh Mittal Allahabad Bank Sector 8 C 19 50032533213 Chandigarh 13349209 Sh. Mukesh Mittal Allahabad Bank Sector 8 C 20 HUF 50032533064 Chandigarh 10997181 Sh. Mukesh Mittal & Central Bank of Sector 18 C 21 Smt. Alka Mittal 1956903973 India 30186849 Document 3 Sh. Mukesh Mittal State Bank of Sector 26 22 65010069183 Patiala 25957272 Sh. Mukesh Mittal State Bank of Sector 26 23 10006607550 Smt. Alka Mittal Patiala The Oriental 11786172 Sector 8 C 24 11152191003714 Bank of Commerce 36239791 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oppose the application for such application, the court is satisfied that there are release; and reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty (ii) of such offence and that he is not likely to commit where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are any offence while on bail: reasonable grounds for believing that he is not Provided that a person who is under the age of guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to sixteen years or is a woman or is sick or infirm, may commit any offence while on bail: be released on bail, if the special court so directs: Provided that a person, who, is under the ge of Provided further that the Special Court shall not take sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, cognizance of any offence punishable under section may be released on bail, if the Special Court so 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by― directs: (i) the Director; or Provided further that the Special Court shall not (ii) any officer of the Central Government or State take cognizance of any offence punishable under Government authorised in writing in this behalf....