TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (1) TMI 363
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t his office in Bombay on 11.7.1991, as he is so required to give evidence and produce the documents in respect of the enquiry being made by him about the recovery of 324 gold bars (each of 10 Tolas on 21.8.1991 at Bombay from a MARUTI VAN GJ-1-7504.) The petitioner sent his reply vide Annexure P2, but he received further summons dated 9.8.1991, with a direction that he should appear at Bombay on 16.8.1991, in connection with the same enquiry. The petitioner has not been informed as to in what connection and for what evidence his presence is wanted and also no list of documents has been sent regarding which he is required to join the investigation. The summons are, thus, vague. The petitioner is neither directly nor indirectly involved in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side the orders which is still pending in this Court. The officers of the DRI are threatening to involve him in some other case unless he withdraws the said petition. The petitioner apprehends false implication, since the recovery of gold bars for which he is being summoned to appear as a witness, was allegedly made from Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh and out of the two, Sukhjit Singh was a co-accused of the petitioner in the previous proceedings. The summons have been issued mala fide and he is being summoned to extract a confessional statement from him. He also submits that direction be given to the respondent-authorities, that in case he is to be arrested in this case or in any other case, a 15-day notice be given to him. 3. In the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the criminal miscellaneous and the plea that the petitioner has been suffering from the ailments, mentioned above, as also his treatment by the doctors and that it would be difficult for him to undertake a journey to Bombay is accepted. At present, the petitioner is only being summoned to appear before the DRI officers for making a statement with respect to the allegations made by Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh about the involvement of the petitioner. If the respondent authorities have not been treating the petitioner to be an accused-person, they were required to arrange for the travelling expenses of the petitioner and his stay at Bombay or atleast they should have given an undertaking to that effect. It is difficult to imagine ....