IMPORTANT POINT
A blanket order fully insulating a person from arrest would make his interrogation a mere ritual and it is not the function of the court to monitor investigation processes so long as such investigation does not transgress any provision of law.

JUDGMENT

Thomas, J.-Leave granted.

2. When the Enforcement Directorate (under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for short FERA ) moved the High Court of Calcutta challenging an order passed by a sessions judge granting anticipatory bail to the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court made the position worse for the Enforcement Directorate (for short the Directorate ). It necessitated the Directorate to move this court with the special leave petition.

3. The officials of the Directorate wanted to interrogate the respondent in connection with recovery of certain documents and other materials in raid conducted in the residential premises of the respondent. So they issued summons to the respondent under Section 40 of FERA to appear before the officials at New Delhi. But the respondent, instead of appearing in response to the summons, approached the High Court with a writ petition challenging the summons and praying for interim orders restraining the officials from proceeding with the summons. A single judge of the High Court, however, refused to grant any interim relief despite repeated motions made by the respondent for that purpose. While the said writ petition was pending the respondent filed an application in the City Sessions Court, Calcutta for an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). The City Sessions Judge granted ad-interim bail order on 19.3.1997 in favour of the respondent with a condition that he should report to the office of the Directorate at Calcutta on every Monday. Appellant challenged the said order before the High Court in revision and a single judge of the High Court disposed of the revision directing the City Sessions Court to hear both parties and to take a final decision on merits. The City Sessions Judge thereupon heard the parties and passed final order on 25.4.1997 in favour of the respondent. The aggrieved appellant moved the Calcutta High Court under Section 439(2) of the Code for cancellation of the said bail order. A Division Bench of the High Court (R. Bhattacharyya and M.A. Chowdhury, JJ.) has passed the impugned order on 20.6.1997 the operative part of which reads thus :

"Persuaded by the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the department to interrogate the accused at the Calcutta office, 8A Lindsay Street, 2nd Floor, Calcutta-700 087, available from the summons. (No. T3/CP/179/Cal/97/MLA/4852 dated 13.6.97) issued by the Enforcement Directorate But the petitioner must not be put on arrest till the applications pending disposal are decided. The petitioner is to attend on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday i.e. on 23rd June 1997 to 27th June, 1997 at 8A Lindsay street and shall report to Shri M.L. Acharya, Chief Enforcement Officer at 2 O clock on the aforesaid dates. The interrogation is to continue until 5 O clock for each day. The prayer for further interrogation is left open which will be considered on hearing the parties. Hearing to continue as before."

4. Despite several postings thereafter and repeated requests made by the appellant for modification of the said order the Division Bench did not do anything in the matter and hence the appellant approached this court.

5. According to the appellant the pre-arrest bail order passed by the Sessions Court and the subsequent order passed by the High Court would very badly affect the effectiveness and utility of the inquiry which the Directorate has to conduct as enjoined by the statutory provisions into the serious allegations of FERA violations glaringly observed against the respondent. Learned counsel produced the files concerning the FERA violation cases against the respondent in which the magnitude of the amount involved is indicated. Appellant pointed out that the City Sessions Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have not given any consideration to certain serious aspects involved. One such aspect is that this respondent was caught earlier in a serious case a FERA viola