TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... officers separately. The relief sought in the petition is as under: (a) "Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other Writ, Order or direction of like nature quashing the notices dated 22/07/2021 & 21/08/2021 and any other consequential notices and/or orders that may be passed qua the petitioners in FIR No. 33 dated 05.04.2021." (b) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also granted in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner No. 1, the Directorate of Enforcement, is an investigating agency functioning under the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, and is empowered to investigate into matters pertaining to Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the PMLA") and Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as "the FEMA"). The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 are investigating officers as per Section 48 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "the PMLA") and while working as Assistant Directors in the Directorate of Enforcement, the said petitioners claim to be Public Servants in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... officials. 7. It is further submitted that one Shri Anup Majee @ Lala, is one of the main organizers for most of the illegal mining at ECL area and transportation of illegal excavated/stolen coal. It is further submitted that he is also running the above activities in connivance with the aforesaid public servants and those public servants are allowing him to misappropriate the Govt. property i.e., coal from the lease hold area of ECL. It is further submitted by the petitioners that Shri Anup Majee @ Lala has since absconded. 8. It is further submitted that on the basis of facts mentioned in FIR No. RC0102020A0022 dated 27.11.2020, a prima facie case for generation of proceeds of crime in relation to scheduled offences was made out and accordingly, the Directorate of Enforcement, recorded an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/17/HIU/2020 on 28.11.2020 and initiated investigation in the matter. 9. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 2 is the Investigating Officer of the case and petitioner No. 3 & 4 are assisting the petitioner No. 2 being assisting IOs. It is further submitted that during scrutiny of record received from the Income Tax department, which were seized by them duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....000) in the said account No. 044-1-88095-2 after some time. Similarly, from conversations between these two persons, it is also revealed that funds were also transferred into other overseas bank accounts like Barclays Bank, London of Ms. Rujira Naroola. It is further submitted by the petitioners that Rujira Naroola is the wife of Sh. Abhishek Banerjee. 11. It is submitted that in the present case, two accused namely Vikas Mishra and Ashok Mishra were arrested by the Directorate of Enforcement on 16.03.2021 and 03.04.2021 respectively. 12. It is further submitted that a Prosecution complaint dated 13.05.2021 has been filed against them arraying both of them as accused. In the remand application dated 16.03.2021 & 04.04.2021, and in the said prosecution complaint some incriminating facts were mentioned against Shri Abhishek Banerjee [the complainant of the FIR filed by West Bengal Police wherein the impugned notices have been issued]. It is further submitted that close on the heels of the second arrest, Shri Abhishek Banerjee lodged an FIR No. 33 dated 05.04.2021, against a News Channel under Sections 171G, 466, 469, 474, 500, 501, 504 read with Section 34 and 120B of the India....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 17. He further submitted that as soon as Shri Abhishek Banerjee was summoned on 22.07.2021 in connection to the ECL illegal Coal mining case, on the very same day, the first impugned notice was issued by the respondents. He further submitted that the motive behind registration of the impugned FIR and subsequent issuance of notices under Section 160(1) of Cr.P.C. was only to harass the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement and to use the State Police Machinery to halt the investigation being conducted by the officers of the Directorate against highly placed persons in the State Government of West Bengal & their suspected role in the offence of Money Laundering. He further submitted that the notices have been issued malafide and with oblique motives and with a view to pressurize the officers investigating the case related to illegal coal mining involving the complainant in the FIR wherein the impugned notices have been issued. 18. Ld. counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the notices issued under Section 160 (1) of Cr.P.C. can only be issued to a person who is within the local jurisdiction of that police station or is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l which clearly fall outside the territorial limits of this Court. He further submitted that in view of the same, any Writ challenging the said notices, would only lie in the High Court at Calcutta. Heavy reliance is placed on the judgment in Rajendra B. Lal Vs. State of UP in this regard. 22. He further submitted that the word "adjoining" occurring in Section 160 Cr.PC implies vesting of jurisdiction outside the State as well. In this regard he relied on the judgment in Anant Brahmachari V. Union of India ILR (2012) III Delhi 682. 23. Ld. counsel Sh. Anand Grover, in addition submitted that from the investigation so far, a larger conspiracy is emerging which discloses the commission of serious offences. 24. In rebuttal Ld. counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the settled canons of Article 226, if part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular High Court especially where a petitioner resides, the said Court can exercise jurisdiction. He further submitted that the judgment in Anant Brahmachari (supra) would not apply to the present case as it concerned an investigation under the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 which ad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Police Officer by using terminology in the nature of "anywhere in the country" or even "anywhere within the State". The clear departure of the Legislature and the use of the terms "within the limits of his own or any adjoining station" points towards a legislative intention to limit the jurisdiction in this regard. The reliance placed by the respondents in this regard on the judgment in Anant Brahmachari V. Union of India (supra), may not further the case of the respondents as clearly the said judgment was dealing with a separate statutory setup in the nature of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 which would have a strong bearing on the issue as the said agency has jurisdiction across the country. Further, this Court in Ravinder Singh V. State and Anr. W.P. (Crl.) No. 971/2010 vide order dated 27.07.2010, has held as under: "The Section does not need help of dictionaries or other judgments for understanding its meaning when there is no ambiguity and it is so clearly written either within his own police station or in the adjoining police station. I, therefore, consider that summons issued to the petitioner under Section 160 Cr.P.C. in Delhi, which is not adjoining....