C O M M O N O R D E R

This batch of 7 Writ Petitions is disposed by means of this common order, as the underlying factual position is one and the same. The challenge is to summons dated 01.10.2020 (in WP.Nos.15190, 15192, 15196, 15193 & 15198 of 2020), 15.09.2020 (in WP.No.17166 of 2020) and 21.09.2020 (in WP.No.15058 of 2020) issued under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short ‘Act’).

2. W.P.No.17166 of 2020 has been filed by one Mukesh Kumar Sharma, who claims to be a freelance accountant carrying out accounting assignments for several entities including Mundhra Bullion Private Limited, Olympia Impex Private Limited (in short ‘Olympia’) and other entities.

3. W.P.No.15058 of 2020 has been filed by Madhavi Mundhra, wife of Ashish Mundhra, who runs Mundhra Bullion Private Limited and Mundhra Jewellers Private Limited (in short ‘Mundhra’). She is a Director in both companies.

4. W.P.Nos.15190, 15192, 15193, 15196 and 15198 of 2020 have been filed by employees of Mundhra (drivers and shop assistants, in short ‘employees’).

5. The genesis of the proceedings is the seizure of 15 kgs of gold booked by Sequel Logistics (consignor) to Olympia (consignee) by the customs authorities at the Kolkatta Airport. Olympia as well as Mundhra are located in Chennai. As a consequence, searches were initiated by the first respondent/the Senior Intelligence Officer in the offices of Olympia and Mundhra as well as other locations. I desist from stating the facts any further for two reasons, one, what is impugned before me is the summons and I am only to test the validity or otherwise of the same, and secondly, proceedings for investigation and enquiry are on-going and I would rather not hamper the same by any observations touching upon the merits.

6. According to the employees, they have already been issued summons by the authorities of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Chennai and statements have been recorded from them. They deny their involvement in any illegal activities and would plead that they are only employees working for monthly salary and thus unconnected with any alleged illegal transactions engaged in by their employers or other third parties. The legal case put forth by them is that once proceedings have been initiated by DRI in Chennai and statements recorded, the DRI in Kolkatta cannot re-initiate or continue the proceedings. The statements recorded by the DRI have, in fact, been retracted by them.

7.The impugned summons does not give any inkling as to any adverse material that has been found linking them to the offending proceedings. The provisions of Section 108 vest authority in the officials to issue summons only for the purpose of giving evidence or production of documents or other items in their possession or control. As regards this, the impugned summons says ‘NA’ to both parameters and hence there could be no other valid purpose for which they would be summoned, except to harass them.

8. The decisions relied upon by Mr.Muralikumaran, learned counsel for the employees, are as follows:

1. Dukhishyam Benupani Vs. Arun Kumar Bajoria [(1988) 1 SCC 52]

2. K.K.Velusamy Vs. N.Palanisamy [(2011) 11 SCC 275]

3. State (NCT of Delhi) Vs Shiv Kumar Yadav [(2016) 2 SCC 402]

4. Gayathri Vs. M.Girish [(2016) 14 SCC 142]

5. Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar [(2001) 7 SCC 318]

6. Pandit M.S.M.Sharma Vs. Dr.Shree Krishna Sinha [AIR 1960 SC

1186]

7. The Prosecutor Vs Callixte NZABONIMANA [2011 SCC Online ICTR

222]

8. Rajnish Kumar Tuli Vs Union of India [2008 SCC Online P & H

2151]

9. According to Mr.Muralikumaran, these petitioners are only witnesses and not accused. He relies upon show cause notice dated 28.01.2021 that has been issued to the Accountant, a copy of which has been filed in these Writ Petitions, wherein the employees are not arrayed as accused. Thus, even according to the Department, they have no nexus with the transactions in question and the impugned summons should be quashed. He would also argue that once examined, there could be