TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (4) TMI 312
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....17166 of 2020 has been filed by one Mukesh Kumar Sharma, who claims to be a freelance accountant carrying out accounting assignments for several entities including Mundhra Bullion Private Limited, Olympia Impex Private Limited (in short 'Olympia') and other entities. 3. W.P.No.15058 of 2020 has been filed by Madhavi Mundhra, wife of Ashish Mundhra, who runs Mundhra Bullion Private Limited and Mundhra Jewellers Private Limited (in short 'Mundhra'). She is a Director in both companies. 4. W.P.Nos.15190, 15192, 15193, 15196 and 15198 of 2020 have been filed by employees of Mundhra (drivers and shop assistants, in short 'employees'). 5. The genesis of the proceedings is the seizure of 15 kgs of gold booked by Sequel Logistics (consignor) to Olympia (consignee) by the customs authorities at the Kolkatta Airport. Olympia as well as Mundhra are located in Chennai. As a consequence, searches were initiated by the first respondent/the Senior Intelligence Officer in the offices of Olympia and Mundhra as well as other locations. I desist from stating the facts any further for two reasons, one, what is impugned before me is the summons and I am only to test the validity or otherwise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estion and the impugned summons should be quashed. He would also argue that once examined, there could be no further requirement to re-examine them and the only reason why the authorities in Kolkata have issued the summons is the authorities in Chennai had failed in their attempt to elicit anything incriminating from the petitioners. 10. Mr.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for Mr.Balaji, learned counsel for the Accountant would continue the line of argument of Mr.Muralikumaran to the effect that the impugned summons are only an exercise in harassment. He points out that the Directors of Mundhra have filed complaints before the police authorities and a charge-sheet has been filed. It is solely for this purpose that summons has been issued to the petitioners who are based in Chennai asking them to appear before the authorities in Kolkata. 11. In one voice, these petitioners would state that while they have no intention of disrespecting the statutory summons issued, proceedings must be initiated only by the authorities in Chennai and they should not be made to travel to Kolkatta at their cost. They would also offer that the proceedings should be conducted over video conferenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... along with C.A.No.81 of 2002 dated 01.03.2007 (Supreme Court)) ii) Sakthi Printeck V. Deputy Director, DRI, Chennai (W.P.Nos.30066 and 30094 of 2017 dated 07.12.2017 (Madras High Court)) iii) Bheena Pharma Japadar V. Union of India (W.P.Nos.15974 and 15975 of 1991 dated 06.12.1991 (Madras High Court)). 15. I had at the initial hearing of these matters, after hearing learned counsel for both parties, passed an order directing the conduct of proceedings by way of video conference. This was in the thick of the COVID -19 pandemic and a consent order was passed in the presence of Mr.Sundareswaran. 16. Having accepted this order, the respondents have not proceeded to conduct the proceedings over video conference. Neither has an application been filed before me seeking modification of the order. Instead, Mr.Sundareswaran relies now upon decisions to the effect that video conference is not a proper medium for the conduct of investigation, Delhi High Court in P.V.Rao Vs. Senior Intelligence Officer [2020 -TIOL-1984-HC-DELGST] and Shri Amit Gupta & Another Vs DGGI [2021-TIOL-398-HC-DELGST] and Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lawrence Bishnoi Vs. State of Haryana & O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eem it appropriate to direct that the interrogation of the respondent may be held within the sight of his advocate or any other person duly authorized by him. The advocate or the person authorized by the respondent may watch the proceedings from a distance or from beyond a glass partition but he will not be within the hearing distance and it will not be open to the respondent to have consultations with him in course of the interrogation. So too in Vijay Sajnani Vs. Union of India and another, Jignesh Kishorebhai Bhajiawala Vs. State of Gujarat (Crl. Misc. A.(Direction) No.289 of 2017 dated 11.01.2017), Krupa Mukund Panchal Vs. Union of India (2019 SCC online Bom.2593), B.Narayanaswamy Vs. Deputy Director & others (2019 SCC Online Mad 32868), Arvindkumar Jain Dhakad Vs. Union of India (W.P.No.2700 of 2019 dated 01.07.2019), Agarwal Foundaries Private Limited Vs. Union of India and others (2020 SCC Online TS 1446), Rajinder Arora and Others Vs. Union of India and other [W.P.(Civil) No. 389 of 2010 dated 07.12.2010), Mahender Kumar Kundia vs. Union of India (319 ELT 9). 22. In a batch of cases decided on 03.04.2018, Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh and batch, (2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oring by the Supreme Court. 27. In a recent judgment, in the case of Paramvir Singh Saini Vs. Baljit Singh and Others in S.L.P.(Criminal)No.3543 of 2020 dated 02.12.2020, a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, at para 2 refer to their earlier judgment in the case of Shafhi Mohammad, noting at para 7, that compliance affidavits in regard to the action taken by 14 States and 2 Union Territories were filed. Tamil Nadu and West Bengal are on the list. 28. At page 8, the Supreme Court laments that the majority of the affidavits reports failed to disclose the exact positioning of the CCTV cameras and are bereft of details with regard to the total number of CCTV cameras, their working condition, whether they have recording facilities and for how many days/weeks the data will be stored. From paragraph 9 to 12 the Court records the progress required and sets out milestones to be achieved in the coming months. At para 17, it is highlighted that the CCTV system must be equipped with night vision and must consist of audio and video footage. The recording equipment used must, they say, allow for maximum storage, in any event not below one year and optimally 18 months. 29.The Union o....