TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no wilful default on his part in absenting from appearing before the Investigating Officer. The copy of summonses produced by the petitioner indicate that summonses issued under Section 50 of the Act asked him to appear before the Deputy Director in person on different days noted in the summons. It is a fact that he did not turn up and had sent only his representative. When the Deputy Director has insisted his personal presence as part of investigation, there is no meaning in saying that he had sent his authorised representative. When personal appearance is insisted, petitioner cannot be heard to say that the Enforcement Directorate should rest content with the documents and statements of the employee deployed by him - Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. In this connection, this Court can see a calculated attempt on the part of the petitioner to defeat the summons and prolong the process of investigation. His adamant stand that he will not appear before the Investigating Officer is not understandable. The presumption under Section 23 of the Act works against the petitioner. Further, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Judge dismissed the application with a rider that the petitioner will be at liberty to file fresh petition after appearing before the Directorate of Enforcement in response to the summons issued to him as part of the ongoing further investigation proceedings. 2. I heard Sri. S Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. 3. The learned Senior Counsel pointed out that by Annexure A1 order he was permitted to renew the passport for a period of three years which expired on 08.11.2021. But before the expiry, he moved the Special Court seeking permission to renew the passport. Referring to Annexure A3 order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 31.08.2021 in C.C. No. 218/2015 which is in respect of the predicate offence, the Chief Judicial Magistrate has permitted him to renew the passport for a period of two years. The petitioner had received summons from the first respondent. Responding the same, necessary documents were produced before the first respondent by the authorised agent of the petitioner; he had produced documents; the statement of the authorised agent was also recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, the statement of the petitioner has to be recorded and he is evading the same under different pretexts. 5. Before going into the rival contentions, it is appropriate to set out the undisputed facts first. Petitioner is the prime accused in ECAR/04/KCZO/2014 registered by the first respondent against the petitioner and others. It is the common case that on the basis of a notification issued under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 by the State of Kerala, 32 FIRs were registered against the petitioner by the CBI. Out of 32, 23 cases were closed after investigation. In seven cases, a consolidated charge sheet was laid before the Chief Judicial Magistrate's Court, Ernakulam alleging offence under Section 420 read with 120B of the IPC which is pending before the Court as C.C. No. 218/2015. It is in respect of the predicate offence. On the basis of the consolidated charge sheet, the said ECIR was registered and on conclusion of investigation a complaint has been laid before the Special Court as S.C. No. 533/2018 alleging offence under Section 3 read with 4 of the Act. In the remaining two cases, it is submitted that for want of sanction by the Bhutan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that large sum of money was laundered by the petitioner. The estimation of the first respondent is that he is guilty of laundering Rs. 910 crores including sum of Rs. 258.52 crores for which three provisional attachment orders were issued. Now the further investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is in progress. As part of the further investigation, summons dated 23.02.2021, 03.03.2021, 24.03.2021, 15.06.2021 and 29.07.2021 were issued. The petitioner admits the receipt of all such notices. But according to him, he has promptly responded the same; there is no wilful default on his part in absenting from appearing before the Investigating Officer. On the account of medical complications, age and movement restrictions and other infirmities prevented him from appearing before the Investigating Officer. However, he has taken prompt steps for producing all the documents sought for as per the summons and authorised his Accountant Mr. J. Arockia Rajadurai to appear and produce documents. The Enforcement Directorate accommodated the request when the authorised representative appeared on 24.08.2021 and his statement was also recorded. 8. All the same, the copy of summonses produced b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
