TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Petitioner alleges that after being taken into the chamber, one subordinate officer closed the door while two others restrained him by holding his hands behind the chair. Respondents 3 and 4 allegedly shouted at him in Hindi, slapped him approximately six to eight times and subjected him to third degree treatment compelling him to admit guilt in relation to offences under the 2002 Act. It is stated, his cries for help were heard by Mr. Chandra Mohan. M, who immediately contacted their counsel, who rushed to the office premises to ascertain his welfare. Petitioner alleges that Respondent No.5, a private security guard, informed the 3rd Respondent about the arrival of their counsel, but they were forcibly removed from the premises and prevented from communicating with petitioner, thereby isolating him from legal assistance. Petitioner contends that the aforesaid actions of Respondents 3 to 5 are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution and the principles governing the rights of persons summoned by investigating agencies. 1.2. Petitioner asserts that any statement, signature or confession allegedly obtained from him on 20-04-2026 was obtained t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en petitioner appeared on 20.04.2026, he requested that one Chandra Mohan be permitted to accompany him on the ground of language difficulty, however, as the said person was not conversant with the language of the proceedings, he was requested to remain at the reception area. His statement was thereafter, recorded in Kannada, a language known to him, in a lawful, transparent and fair manner with adequate breaks and procedural safeguards. During the proceedings, certain persons claiming to be advocates arrived at the reception area and created an unnecessary disturbance by raising baseless allegations. Petitioner himself categorically stated that he had neither engaged any counsel nor had any acquaintance with such persons, thereby demonstrating that their conduct was unrelated to the investigation proceedings. 2.3. It is stated, the persons claiming to be advocates misbehaved with the security personnel posted at the reception of the Directorate of Enforcement. The entire incident was captured in CCTV footage installed at the reception, which allegedly shows that the said persons came with a pre-planned intention to obstruct and derail the investigation, engaged in heated argume....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich allegedly shows petitioner leaving the Directorate of Enforcement office at about 8:00 p.m. on 20.04.2026 without any visible injury or mark on his face. The footage near the security desk clearly captures his face while he looked at the clock and entered the time in the register, and no injury is visible on either cheek. After signing the register, petitioner was captured on CCTV leaving the office situated on the third floor through the staircase while carrying a mobile phone. Respondents therefore, contend that photographs relied upon by petitioner are false, fabricated, suspicious and possibly self-inflicted solely for the purpose of avoiding investigation and making false allegations against the officers of the Directorate of Enforcement. 3. Petitioner filed reply stating that Respondents approached this Court with unclean hands and violated the order dated 22.04.2026, whereby the Hon'ble Court directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to file a counter affidavit along with relevant CCTV footage and all relevant documents, but they failed to comply with the said direction. Instead of producing the complete CCTV footage, Respondents s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idence involving a Contracting State, requiring satisfaction of the Special Court under Section 57(1), and any evidence collected without following the said procedure cannot be treated as valid evidence under Section 57(3). 3.4. Petitioner further relies upon subsequent medical evidence and submits that after returning to Bangalore, he suffered severe headaches (acute cephalalgia), blurred vision, and hearing-related complications. He underwent consultation at Sri Balaji Speech and Hearing Clinic and diagnostic examinations including an Audiogram and X-ray studies. According to the medical findings, there exists a significant disparity in hearing thresholds and he was diagnosed with Bilateral Minimal Hearing Loss. It is asserted, the said condition is directly attributable to the custodial torture and third-degree treatment allegedly inflicted by Respondents. The relevant medical reports, diagnostic charts and prescriptions are stated to have been filed along with the Reply Affidavit. 4. Heard Sri P.N. Dayakar, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri D. Narender Naik, learned Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate. 5. At the outset, it is to be seen, summons da....