TMI Blog2016 (1) TMI 833X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether the petitioners have been prejudiced - Held that:- It is not disputed that the summons issued to the petitioners which are subject matter of challenge are as per Form V. The petitioner has not challenged any of the rules or the sections of the Act and neither any challenge has been raised to the vires of the Act that it is violative of any procedure and that his fundamental rights under the Constitution are infringed. Thus, it is apparent that it is in pursuance of the statutory powers, the authorities have issued summons. In the present case, as noticed, the complaint has to be filed and with the investigation being at the initial stage the same cannot be quashed at a thresh hold in the absence of any legal bar provided under the Statute. - The ancillary prayers made for videography at the time of investigation in the presence of the advocate while recording statements thus is the only issue left for consideration in view of the above discussion. It is to be noticed that counsel for the respondent, vide order dated 19.03.2015, had undertaken that on the petitioners joining the investigation, they would have no objection to the interrogation/examination being videograp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Ram (Retired Superintendent of Estate Office) and Narinder Kumar Verma, Jr.Assistant in the Estate Office. The said ECIR was registered on complaint of one Tara Singh, resident of United Kingdom, who was a client of Mr.G.S.Sawhney and it was alleged that the power of attorney of Harnek Singh was forged. The said power of attorney had been used for execution of sale deed in collusion with Mr.G.S.Sawhney, who was representing Mr.Tara Singh in a suit for specific performance and the trial of the said case was pending in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The ECIR (Annexure P37) in question was registered and the petitioners were nowhere connected or involved and associated with the said FIR. Petitioner No.1 was doing his business at Gobindgarh and on 13.01.2015, when he was away for business, the officials of the respondents visited his residence in the morning and searched his house in the presence of his wife and nothing had been seized. He was a client of Mr.Mukesh Mittal, Advocate and he had been summoned vide summons dated 06.02.2015 and 09.02.2015, to appear before the officials of the ED and to bring documents. The said summons were issued under Sub-sections (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents was without jurisdiction and they had no power to investigate without following the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The rights of the petitioners were being violated under the guise of the commission of the offence as the mandatory procedure prescribed by law was not being followed and the petitioners were neither accused in the FIR and were being harassed by certain influential persons in the echelons of power who were inimical to Mr.Mukesh Mittal. After registration of the ECIR, no copy had been sent to the Magistrate and the act of seizing the bank accounts was wholly illegal and unwarranted. 6. In the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, it is pleaded that after the lodging of FIR No.4 dated 22.07.2009 against the main accused therein, against whom charges have been framed, the present ECIR No.5 had been lodged to investigate in the offences of money laundering as the offences under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 471, 120B of IPC and under Sectins 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were covered under the Schedule to PMLA. On the basis of the material and reasons to believe, searches were conducted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... session of the proceeds of crime on the basis of voluminous incriminating documents including bank accounts, documents received from the ROC, Estate Office and Income Tax Department and materials seized during the course of the search. The investigation had been conducted under the provisions of the PMLA in view of the crime mentioned in the FIR No.4. Another FIR No.5 dated 13.06.2012 under Section 406, 424, 467, 468, 120B had been registered at Police Station (Vigilance) Chandigarh against Ajay Singh, petitioner in CWP No.1418 of 2015, for cheating the share-holders of the company and ECIR No.CDZO08 had also been lodged. 8. It was admitted that nothing was recovered from the office of petitioner No.1 and search was conducted on the basis of the material and reasons to believe but he had not received summons so far. Petitioner No.2 had been issued summons on the complaint from NRI Mr.Karadeep Singh that the property of his grandfather had been grabbed by the said petitioner and he had never entered into the said agreement nor had made cash payment of 15 lacs. He had, accordingly, been summoned to show the source of the cash payment. Petitioner No.3 was a co-sharer in one bigha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent to the adjudicating authority at New Delhi within the stipulated period. Show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner and 42 other persons for 23.04.2015. The procedure was prescribed under the PMLA and the complaint had to be filed under Section 44 read with Section 45. The said provisions being under the special statute, reliance was placed upon Section 65 read with Sections 4 5 of the Cr.P.C., to submit that the investigation was being carried out under a special statute and therefore, the jurisdiction of the authorities was, accordingly, justified. 11. The ECIR was registered which was only for internal purposes to start investigation and the petitioners were not cooperating in the investigation inspite of summons having been issued. The freezing of the bank accounts of respondents No.3 to 6 was legal and intimation had been sent to the competent authorities as required under Section 17, who had issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Petitioner No.1 had not been issued any summons or notice. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Rakesh Manekchand Kothari Vs. Union of India decided on 16.01.2015 (Annexure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, investigation cannot be done and, therefore, the lodging of the ECIR dated 25/26.03.2013 (Annexure P-37) has been challenged. It is submitted that since the Cr.P.C. is the parent Act for the purpose of arrest, search, seizure and investigation and without having taken any such permissions from the Competent Court, the officials are acting without jurisdiction. Thus, the said ECIR is liable to be quashed including the search and seizure which has been done under the Act. Accordingly, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Om Parkash and another vs. Union of India and another, 2011 (14) SCC 1 to submit that the non-cognizable offences under the Act are to be treated as bailable offences and the investigation could not have commenced and neither the petitioners can be arrested in respect of such offences without a warrant of arrest. The authorities under the Act could not treat the noncognizable offence as a cognizable offence and the procedure would be void and proceedings are liable to be quashed. Reliance is accordingly placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 (1) and reference was accordingly made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he other hand, submitted that the PMLA was a Code in itself and investigation could be carried out as per the definition of Section 2(na) for the collection of the evidence for the offence of money laundering under Section 3 and the offence was cognizable and non-bailable. He also placed reliance upon Sections 46 and 65 to submit that the provisions of the Cr.P.C. would apply in so far as they were not inconsistent with the provisions of PMLA. Reference was made to Section 44 to submit that only a Special Court, upon a complaint, could take cognizance upon Sections 44 and 45 and that also upon a complaint in writing by the Director or any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorized in writing in that behalf by the State Government by general or special order. Section 48 was referred to, to show the classes of authorities who can be appointed for the purpose of the Act which was headed by the Director, Additional Director, Joint Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Director. Accordingly, it was argued that the procedure as prescribed under the Act had been followed by the authorities who were investigating into the proceeds of crime which they had stumbled up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so made to the forms and the manner of the arrest which could be made under Section 19 and the liability to produce before the Magistrate within 24 hours under Sub-clause 3 while forwarding the copy of the order of the arrest alongwith the material in possession to the Adjudicating Authority which was a statutory and independent body set up under Section 6 of the Act. The provisions of Section 71 which provided that the Act had an over riding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. That Section 54 was referred to, to contend that officers of the customs and central excise department, officers appointed under Section 5(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1995, income tax authorities, officers of the police etc. were required to assist the authorities and the Act was notified for the purpose of obviating threats to the financial system of the countries and also to the integrity and sovereignty of the country. 18. The case was reserved on 17.07.2015 for judgment and thereafter, an application was made on behalf of the petitioners for further hearing, which was allowed. During the course o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words which may extend to seven years , the words which may extend to ten years had been substituted. 20. Under Section 2(na), investigation for all the proceedings under the Act are to be conducted by the Director or any authority authorized by the Central Government for collection of evidence. The said Section reads thus:- 2(na) investigation includes all the proceedings under this Act conducted by the Director or by an authority authorised by the Central Government under this Act for the collection of evidence; 21. Under Section 49, the power of the Central Government is there to appoint such persons as it thinks fit to be the authorities for the purpose of the Act and Section 48 provides the class of authorities which reads thus:- 48. Authorities under the Act.- There shall be the following classes of authorities for the purposes of this Act, namely:- (a) Director or Additional Director or Joint Director, (b) Deputy Director, (c) Assistant Director, and (d) such other class of officers as may be appointed for the purposes of this Act. 22. Section 16 falling under Chapte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erson arrested under sub-section (1) shall within twenty-four hours, be taken to a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction: Provided that the period of twenty-four hours shall exclude the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Magistrate s Court. 23. This Chapter thus deals with the power of summons and searches with which we are concerned with and further provides that the retention of the property can be continued for a period not exceeding 180 days under Section 20 and whereas, under sub-section (3), the Adjudicating Authority can permit the retention or continuation of freezing of such property beyond the said period. Section 24 further provides that in the proceedings relating to the proceeds of crime, burden of proof would be upon the person charged with the offence of money laundering under Section 3 and the Court is to presume that the proceeds of crime are involved in money laundering. 24. Chapter III, on the other hand, deals with the attachment, adjudication and confiscation of the attachment of properties to which an ancillary challenge has also been raised. Section 5 provides that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable in view of the amendment made and whether the authorities under the Act have any jurisdiction to investigate into the cognizable offence. 27. Section 45 of the Act, as it originally was and thereafter amended reads thus:- 28. The amended provisions specifically provide that no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment for more than 3 years under Part A of the Schedule shall be released on bail on his own bond unless the public prosecutor is given an opportunity to oppose the application for said release. 29. In our considered opinion, the above provisions are of no help to the petitioners and only lay down certain terms and conditions for the Courts while deciding the application for bail. Reference has been made to the said provisions to persons who are accused of the offences which are provided under Part A of the Schedule which are punishable for a term of imprisonment for a period of more than 3 years. Thus, restriction is sought to be imposed upon that category of accused and the Court has to comply with certain conditions while deciding their bail application. In the present case, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able offence provided under Section 2(c) of the Cr.P.C. reads thus:- (c) cognizable offence means an offence for which, and cognizable case means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant; 31. The definition of investigation under Section 2(h) of the Cr.P.C. pertains to the proceedings under the said Code and, therefore, one has to fall back on the definition under Section 2(na) of the PMLA, which specifically provides that all proceedings under the Act are to be conducted by the authorized authorities for the collection of evidence. 32. In the present case, as noticed, investigation is in progress of the serious offences of money laundering pertaining to 38 accounts and some of the petitioners are account holders of the said accounts which have been detailed in paragraph no. 15. It has already been noticed that there are serious allegations of money laundering and incriminating documents including 214 blank signed cheques relating to several shell companies without any business activity but having heavy financial dealings which have been unearthed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tc. shall not apply. There is no provision in the Act which is a special statute for filing of police report. It could file a complaint only after completion of investigation by the authorized authority, which shall be the basis of taking cognizance. 13. As noticed above, the word investigation as defined in Section 2(na) has been inserted by virtue of Amendment Act 20 of 2005. According to the definition the word investigation includes all the proceedings under the Act conducted by the Director or by an authority authorized by the Central Government under the Act for the collection of evidence. 14. The provision contained in Sections 44 and 45 of the Act prohibits taking of cognizance except on a complaint made by the appropriate authority who can file a complaint only after completion of investigation. In my considered opinion, therefore, in view of nonobstante clause contained in various provisions of the Act, which has overriding effect, the provision contained in section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C. will not apply. 35. The submission that the offence is non-cognizable mainly because a complaint has to be filed by the authorities before the Special Court to take cog ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a complaint made by an authority authorised in this behalf under this Act take [cognizance of offence under Section 3, without the accused being committed to it for trial]. [(c) if the court which has taken cognizance of the scheduled offence is other than the Special Court which has taken cognizance of the complaint of the offence of moneylaundering under sub-clause (b), it shall, on an application by the authority authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed.] [(d) a Special Court while trying the scheduled offence or the offence of moneylaundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session.] (2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the competent Court, who will, then proceed to decide the right of bail in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. The reference to the provisions of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. whereby, there is a bar for the police officer to investigate the noncognizable offence without the order of the Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial thus would be without any basis in view of the fact that the police officers have been specifically excluded from investigating into the matters under Section 45(1A) except with special authorization of the Central Government. Similarly, reference to Section 157 which provides the procedure for investigation by the officer in charge of the police station would not be applicable as the same pertains to the information received under Section 154 of the Cr.P.C. Perusal of Rule 73 (ua) would rather go on to show that rules could be made which provide the conditions to which the police officer could be authorized to investigate into the offence under sub-section (1A) of Section 45. It has not been pointed out in any manner that any such rules have been framed or that any police officers were investigating the offences so that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions Insecurities) Act, 1992. It was the argument that there was no legislative intendment of conferring the power of pardon on the Special Court which was repealed by noticing that Courts lean against implied repeal. The relevant observations read thus:- Mr.Jethmalani further contends that simply to confer on the Special Court the power to tender pardon by itself is not enough without conferring on it the power to punish the person who accepts tender of pardon in case of violation by him of terms and conditions on which the pardon is tendered. The submission is that a reading of the provisions of the Act clearly shows that the power as contained in Section 308 of the Code to punish the accomplice for violation of the terms and conditions of the pardon has not been conferred on the Special Court and, therefore, it is evident that the power to tender pardon has also not been conferred on that court. Counsel submits that for deciding these matters the paramount question one is required to ask himself is why provisions similar to the one in 1952 Act and other such enactments conferring specific power to grant pardon and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y implication is overthrown if the new law is inconsistent with or repugnant to the old law, for the inconsistency or repugnancy reveals an intent to repeal the existing laws. Repugnancy must be such that the two statutes cannot be reconciled on reasonable construction or hypothesis. They ought to be clearly and manifestly irreconcilable. It is possible, as contended by Mr. Jethmalani, that the inconsistency may operate on a part of a statute. Learned counsel submits that in the present case the presumption against implied repeal stands rebutted as the provisions of the Act are so inconsistent with or repugnant to the provisions of the earlier Acts that the two cannot stand together. The contention is that the provisions of Sections 306 and 307 cannot be complied with by the Special Court and thus the legislature while enacting the Act clearly intended that the said existing provisions of the Code would not apply the proceedings under the Act. Learned counsel contends that this court will not construe the Act in a manner which will make Sections 306 and 307 or at least part of the said sections otiose and thereby defeat the legislative intendment whatever be the consequences of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manner or place of investigation. Similarly, Section 5 provides that nothing contained in the Code shall in the absence of specific provision to the contrary shall affect the special or local law for the time being. Sections 4 and 5 of Cr.P.C. reads thus:- Sections 4 and 5 Cr.P.C. 4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences 5. Saving Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. 48. The judgment relied u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gistrate may take cognizance of any offence disclosed in the report under Section 190(1) (b) of the Code whereas the empowered or authorised officer of the special Acts has to file only a complaint of facts constituting any offence under the provisions of the Act on the receipt of which the Magistrate may take cognizance of the said offence under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code. After taking cognizance of the offence either upon a police report or upon receiving a complaint of facts, the Magistrate has to proceed with the case as per the procedure prescribed under the Code or under the special procedure, if any, prescribed under the special Acts. Therefore, the word investigation cannot be limited only to police investigation but on the other hand, the said word is with wider connotation and flexible so as to include the investigation carried on by any agency whether he be a police officer or empowered or authorised officer or a person not being a police officer under the direction of a Magistrate to make an investigation vested with the power of investigation. 49. Similarly, it was held that provisions of Section 167(2) would be applicable as the operation of Section 4(2) Cr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been statutorily prohibited from filing a police report. It could file a complaint petition only as an appropriate authority so as to comply with the requirements contained in Section 22 of TOHO. If by reason of the provisions of TOHO, filing of a police report by necessary implication is necessarily forbidden, the question of its submitting a report in terms of Sub-section (2) ofSection 173 of the Code did not and could not arise. In other words, if no police report could be filed, Sub- section (2) of Section 167 of the Code was not attracted. 20. It is a well-settled principle of law that if a special statute lays down procedures, the ones laid down under the general statutes shall not be followed. In a situation of this nature, the respondent could carry out investigations in exercise of its authorization under Section 13(3)(iv) of TOHO. While doing so, it could exercise such powers which are otherwise vested in it. But, as it could not file a police report but a complaint petition only; Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code may not be applicable. The provisions of the Code, thus, for all intent and purport, would apply only to an extent till conflict arises between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of Sessions shall take cognizance of any offence as a Court of Original Jurisdiction unless the case has been committed to it by a Magistrate, but such provision being in conflict with Section 36A of the Act, the police report or a complaint can be filed before the Court of Sessions directly. When a complaint is filed, the Court of Sessions commences proceedings regulated by Chapter XV of the Code. Such provision inter alia contemplates that if a complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate is not required to examine the complainant and the witnesses, if a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties files a complaint. The Code contemplates investigation by the police culminating with the filing of a police report and also proceedings to be initiated on the basis of a complaint by an empowered Officer in terms of Chapter XV of the Code. Therefore, when a police in terms of Code investigates into an offence including an offence under the Act, it files a report under Section 173 of the Code, whereas the investigation by an empowered officer under the Act leads to filing of a complaint in terms of Section 190 of the Code. 40. Thus, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (ee) the manner of seizing or taking possession of property attached under section 5 or frozen under sub-section (1A) of section 17 or under sub-section (4) of section 8; (f) the manner in which and the conditions subject to which the properties confiscated may be received and managed under subsection [(jj) the manner of identifying beneficial owner, if any, from the clients by the reporting entities under clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 12;] (m) the rules relating to search and seizure under sub-section (1) of section 17; (n) the manner in which the reasons and the material referred to in subsection (2) of section 17 shall be maintained. (p) the manner in which the order and the material referred to in sub-section (2) of section 19 shall be maintained. (w) the rules relating to impounding and custody of records under sub-section (5) of section 50; 54. As per the rules framed, we find that as many as 11 set of rules have been framed under Section 73. The details of same are mentioned below:- A. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.-The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply,in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act relating to search and seizure. 11. Forms of records.-The Summoning Officer shall, while exercising powers under sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 50 of the Act, issue summons in Form V appended to these rules. FORM V (See rule 11) FORM FOR SUMMONS .................................................... .................................................... .................................................... [ADDRESS OF THE SUMMONING OFFICER] No. .................. WHEREAS I....................................................................Director or Additional Director or Joint Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director, am making investigation under the provisions of the Prevention of Money-laundering Act, 2002 (15 of 2003). AND WHEREAS, I consider the attendance of........................................................ [name of the person summoned and his address] necessary in connection with the said investigations. NOW, THEREFORE, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reserve the same under Rule 5 for a period of 10 years or as prescribed. As per Rule 6, the arresting Officer has to sign the arrest order in Form III while exercising powers under Section 19(1) of the Act. The said rule reads thus:- 3. Manner of forwarding a copy of the order of arrest and the material to the Adjudicating Authority.- (1) The Arresting Officer shall prepare an index of the copy of the order and the material in possession and sign each page of such index of the copy of the order and the material and shall also write a letter while forwarding such index, order and the material to the Adjudicating Authority in a sealed envelope. (2) The Arresting Officer shall place an acknowledgement slip in Form I appended to these rules inside the envelope before sealing it. (3) The Arresting Officer shall indicate a reference number and date of despatch on the sealed envelope. (4) The sealed envelope shall be marked Confidential and To be opened by the addressee only , the complete address of the Adjudicating Authority including his name shall be mentioned on the sealed envelope with the official seal. (5) The Arresting Officer shall place the sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatute has given ample power to the authorities and methodology has been prescribed which prima facie goes on to show that sufficient safeguards are in place and the adjudicating authority is to monitor the investigation and the arrest can only be on the basis of reasons to be recorded in writing. Neither any reference had been made to the rules by the petitioner and neither it had been complained that the said rules have been violated in any manner. Due to the lack of any challenge being raised to the same, we are of the opinion that the argument raised that the principles laid down in D.K. Basu s case (supra) have been violated is without any basis. Similarly, the observations in Lalitha Kumari s case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case as the issue therein was pertaining to the non-lodging of the FIRs by the police authorities, in spite of the fact that in Cr.P.C., it is clearly provided that it was mandatory to register an FIR before an investigation was conducted. 60. The Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358 held that it would be an unnatural construction to hold that any other procedure was permitted than th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat there were observations that the issue required deeper consideration though various observations have been made in favour of the petitioners which are sought to be highlighted. Interim orders of this nature cannot be held to be a precedent or of any persuasive value since there has to be a final decision. Interim directions always go with the final decision and cannot be taken into consideration. For precedent to be binding, there has to be final decision and interim directions, issued in a pending case, would go with the final decision and cannot be taken into consideration. The said principle as to what is the ratio decidendi and the authoritative and binding element of the final judgment, laying down the precedent is to be taken into consideration and not the interim orders. Reference can be made to the observations made by the Apex court in State of Assam Vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha (2009) 5 SCC 694. Relevant observations of the judgment read as under: 21. A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
