TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 586
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the applicant (A4) when there is no requirement as such. iv The applicant (A4) would be required to disclose the schedule or share itinerary. If the application is allowed the applicant may flee away from the jurisdiction and further conceal himself without making him available during the trial. v There is possibility of tampering with evidence. With these objections, ED contended to reject the application. 2. Heard Ld. Sr. Counsel Mr. Aabad Ponda along with Ld. Counsel Mr. Sajal Yadav @ ld. Adv. Aayushya Geruja for the applicant and Ld. SPP Mr. Sunil Gonsalves. 3. Relying on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in Tarsem Lal Vs. Directorate of Enforcement Jalandhar Zonal Office [Criminal Appeal No. 2608 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 121 of 2024)], the applicant specifically contended that he (A4) is Managing Director of Hub Town Ltd. since 30.12.1996. He is Chartered Accountant having 30 years wide experience and expertize in the field of Construction, Finance and Property Development and also a co-founder of Hub Town Ltd. He being Managing Director of the company, his duty demands him to travel to different countries to explor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing its summons. Thereafter, this Court had continuously passed Orders holding that if ED has not arrested any person under Sec. 19 PML Act, such person need not apply under Sec. 45 PML Act but his appearance has to be entertained as per Sec. 88 Cr.P.C. and he should be released forthwith on personal bond with or without sureties. 7. In many previous Orders this Court has boldly observed and taken note as to how ED has been trying to get their work done through the Court when they themselves failed to do it, i.e. arrest of accused under Sec. 19 PML Act and garb their failure in not doing the same at appropriate time. I have also made certain bold observations in many Orders under Sec. 88 Cr.P.C. that until such person receives summons for his appearance before the Court after issuance of process, ED cannot resist his appearance and contend him to be taken in judicial custody. It is simply because it is the ED who basically allows such person to be scotfree without any apprehensions of his travelling abroad, tampering and hampering evidence, flight risk, apprehension of dealing with POC and assisting the said process etc. but for the first time when such person appears before the C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t many accused persons involved in ED cases and who were never arrested under Sec.19 PML Act, have inevitable part of their life / profession to frequently and extensively travel abroad. Every time they have to apply to the Court for seeking permission of the Court. Certainly the Court cannot pass any order without hearing ED. ED raises typical objections of flight risk etc. for which they never thought to arrest the accused under Sec. 19 PML Act. The Court has to wait for say of ED Officer because Ld. SPP dealing with the case wants it on record, which ultimately consumes time. In such scenario some times accused misses his travel programme and the very object of the application gets frustrated. Sometimes some accused who are frequent fliers for their profession like this applicant (A4), who has to travel some more countries than the countries applied for and permitted by the Court. They cannot travel to such new destination(s) but have to return India for making a fresh application. Sometimes in such situation also they cannot reach India, make application, get permission and then continue their travel to the next destination(s), simply because there is no such permission to cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nly this is not the true purport of the Order under Sec .88 Cr.P.C. and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) recently. 14. Ld. SPP Mr. Sunil Gonsalves vehemently argued that the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) cannot have retrospective effect. While making such argument Mr. Gonsalves, Ld. SPP could not point out whether the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tarsem Lal (supra) has specifically laid down that it would have only prospective application and not retrospective. Secondly, the Court is not dealing with any application under Sec. 88 Cr.P.C. or deciding whether the accused who appears before the Court responding summons of the Court is to be taken in custody or has to be released. Because in the instant case this stage has already gone and Order dt. 07.06.2022 below Exh. 12 passed by this Court have not challenged by the ED before the Hon'ble High Court. The only question in this application is whether to allow the prayer by modifying the Order dt .07.06.2022. According to ED that will amount reviewing the Order dt. 07.06.2022 and also it would amount an omnibus order without any embargo etc. 15. Basically there is no sub....