TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued pertaining to the same ECIR, in respect of which present petition is filed. But it is clarified that the writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court pertains to the stage prior to completion of investigation and filing of complaint by Respondent No. 2- The Directorate of Enforcement under the provisions of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA'). It is submitted that the petitioners have approached the Supreme Court when summons were issued to them in November 2020 and order of no coercive action was granted in favour of petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 by the Supreme Court and that the the said writ petition is still pending. 2] It is brought to the notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d persons, a specific prayer was made before the said Court seeking leave for conducting further investigation and to file supplementary complaints in due course of time. Attention of this Court was then invited to order dated 16.1.2021 passed by the Designated Court whereby the said Court issued process against five named accused persons. It was specifically emphasized by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that leave sought for further investigation was not pressed and it was not expressly granted by the Designated Court in the said order. 6] Learned senior counsel further invited attention of this Court to another order dated 16.1.2021 passed by the Designated Court in Bail Application filed by one of the five nam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stigation against the petitioners in respect of the said ECIR and an order to the respondent no. 2 restraining it from arresting or taking any coercive steps against the petitioner no. 4 in respect of the ECIR. 9] In response to the aforesaid contentions, Mr. Anil Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2 vehemently opposed the same. He contended that observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai [cited supra] have to be read in the context of the question that came up for consideration. By inviting our attention to specific paragraphs of the said Judgment, learned ASG, submitted that power of investigating authority to carry out further investigation under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. was no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion is necessarily forbidden, further investigation is not." 11] Learned ASG further invited our attention to the responses given by petitioner nos. 2 and 4 to the summons issued to them, in order to demonstrate that they had assured respondent no. 2 about co-operation and yet they have claimed in the present writ petition that further investigation itself is not sustainable. According to learned ASG, the said conduct of petitioner nos. 2 and 4 clearly indicates their non-cooperation and hence, they do not deserve any interim protection in the present case. 12] We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the rival parties. A perusal of complaint dated 19.12.2020 filed by respondent no. 2 before the Designated Court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nues night till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag V. State of West Bengal and Ors (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled." 15] On the basis of the rival contentions, we find that an arguable issue arises in the present case, which needs consideration. There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner nos. 1 to 3 are already enjoying an order of interim protection given by the Supreme Court in the pending writ petition. It is only the petitioner no. 4 who is presently apprehending coercive action in pursuance to summons issued by respondent no. 2. 16] In view of the contentions....