Back
2020 Supreme(Ker) 987
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J.
C.M.Raveendran S/o. Chakkeri Meethal Choyi - Appellant
Versus
Union of India Represented By The Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi and Ors - Respondent
WP(C).No.28049 of 2020(E)
Decided On : 17-12-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri.B.Raman Pillai (Sr.) Sri.M.Sunilkumar Sri.Sujesh Menon V.B. Sri.T.Anil Kumar Sri.Thomas Abraham (Nilackappillil) Shri.Mahesh Bhanu S. Smt.S.Lakshmi Sankar Shri.Ressil Lonan Sri.R.Anil Advs.
For the Respondent: Sri Surya Prakash V Raju By Additional Solicitor General of India, Adv. T.A.Unnikrishnan, CGC & Special Counsel For Enforcement Directorate Sri Zoheb Hossain Asg P.Vijayakumar
Point of Law: Powers of authorities regarding summons, production of documents and to give evidence - It is well settled that a writ petition lies when some right of any party is infringed - A mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet does not infringe right of anyone
Headnote:
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 50 – Seeking direction to 2nd respondent to refrain from detaining the petitioner beyond reasonable time and to permit presence of a legal practitioner during questioning - Summons was issued by 2nd respondent, requiring the petitioner to appear in person. As petitioner was not keeping well, he requested to extend date for appearance by four days. Petitioner tested positive for Covid-19 and was admitted at the Medical College. He was discharged 2nd respondent was informed about these developments, in spite of which, Exhibit P5 summons was issued, requiring petitioner’s presence at Directorate – Again petitioner sought postponement of date as he had not fully recuperated from after effects of the viral infection. Thereafter, another summons was issued, asking petitioner to appear. The petitioner expressed inability to appear on that day, since he had to be at Hospital for review - Thereupon summons was issued requiring petitioner to appear before 2nd respondent. Hence writ petition
Finding of the court: Court unable to accept submission of counsel for petitioner that the cause of action is based on the repeated summoning of the petitioner in spite of his illness, which gave rise to reasonable apprehension that petitioner will be forced to give statements against his will. I find no basis for such apprehension inasmuch as the date for appearance was changed by the 2nd respondent on three occasions, acceding to the request made by the petitioner. Having commenced an investigation or proceeding, the 2nd respondent cannot be expected to wait indefinitely to suit the petitioner’s convenience. As held by Apex Court in Dukhishyam Benupani, it is not for this Court to monitor investigation and to decide venue, the timings, the questions and the manner of questioning. I find the following observations by Justice R.K.Gauba in Virbhadra Singh to be contextually relevant
Result: Writ petition is dismissed
ORDER :
1. The petitioner is working as the Additional Private Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala. The Enforcement Directorate has issued summons to the petitioner under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (‘the Act’, for short). Petitioner apprehends that on his appearance in response to the summons, he will be restrained for long hours and coerced into giving statements against his will. The petitioner therefore prays for a direction to the 2nd respondent to refrain from detaining the petitioner beyond reasonable time and to permit the presence of a legal practitioner during questioning.
2. The dates and events, as narrated in the writ petition, are as follows;
Exhibit P1 summons was issued by the 2nd respondent, requiring the petitioner to appear in person on 6.11.2020. As the petitioner was not keeping well, he requested to extend the date for appearance by four days. On 6.11.2020, petitioner tested positive for Covid-19 and was admitted at the Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram. He was discharged on 18.11.2020. The 2nd respondent was informed about these developments, in spite of which, Exhibit P5 summons was issued, requiring the petitioner’s presence at the Directorate on 27.11.2020. Again, the petitioner sought postponement of the date as he had not fully recuperated from the after effects of the viral infection. Thereafter, another summons was issued, asking the petitioner to appear on 10.12.2020. The petitioner expressed inability to appear on that day, since he had to be at the Hospital for review on 10.12.2020. Thereupon, Exhibit P11 summons was issued requiring the petitioner to appear before the 2nd respondent on 17.12.2020. Hence, the writ petition.
3. Heard Sri.R.Anil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.S.V.Raju, learned Additional Solicitor General.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the challenge in the writ petition is not against the power to issue summons, but against the injudicious manner in which the power is being exercised. According to the learned counsel, repeated summoning of the petitioner, in spite of his ailments and weak physical condition, speaks volumes about the arbitrariness and mala fides behind the action. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner that he will be detained for long hours and made to give statements against his will, is well founded. It is pointed out that continuous interrogation for long hours will have adverse impact on the already weak health condition of the petitioner. It is submitted that, even if the presence of a lawyer during questioning is not allowed, there may at least be a direction to confine the questioning to a reasonable period of time.
5. The learned ASG raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition. It was contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as premature since, mere issuance of summons under Section 50 of the Act does not give rise to any cause of action. In support of this contention reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Kirit Shrimankar v. Union of India and Others [order dated 20.11.2014 in WP(Crl.). No.110/2013] and Union of India and Another v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. In Kirit Shrimankar, the petitioner approached the Apex Court after officials from the Customs Department conducted search in the residential premises of his former wife. The petitioner alleged that he was threatened with arrest and incarceration, if he did not submit to the dictates of the Customs Officials. The Apex Court observed that it was highly premature for the petitioner to seek remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India based on such flimsy averments, which cannot form the basis for a prima facie apprehension. Thereupon, the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. In Kunisetty Satyanarayana, the appellant had approached the court on being served with a show cause notice by his employer regarding the genuineness of his caste
