The division judge bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath of the apex court in the case of Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs Ramesh Malik & Ors held that a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could not have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another proceeding started by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities visavis the allegations.
BRIEF FACTS
The factual matrix of the case is that several instructions have been given to the petitioner herein, such as directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to start interrogation of the petitioner and in the event, the petitioner no longer cooperates with the CBI turned into given the freedom to interrogate them after taking them into custody. This set of orders surpassed has been carried in attraction by means of the petitioner in addition to other government earlier than a Division Bench of the High Court.The Division Bench, in substance, sustained those orders. When the Petitions for Special Leave to Appeal changed into heard through this Court, note turned into issued and inside the SLPs in connection with which these IAs have been taken out, it became directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that when the latter was under the protective cover of the order passed by this Court, his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate was illegal, being in violation of that Order of this Court. It was further submitted that the protection granted by this Court was in relation to a particular offence and the Enforcement Directorate had arrested him in relation to the same offence, which was unwarranted.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate has contended that the in the Writ Petitions, out of which the present proceedings arise, Enforcement Directorate was not a party. The Order of this Court, giving interim protection to the petitioner from coercive steps, was based in the backdrop of the direction of the Single Judge issued on CBI to investigate the allegations of irregularities pertaining to the recruitment of primary teachers and observations of the Single Judge that CBI could interrogate the petitioner and also arrest him in case of his noncooperation. His case is that the Enforcement Directorate had initiated an independent investigation into moneylaundering allegations based on the aforesaid ECIR against one Chandan Mondal @Ranjan and unknown office bearers of the West Bengal Board of Primary Education and others.
COURT’S OBSERVATION
The Hon’ble court held that we cannot hold the arrest of the petitioner by the Enforcement Directorate illegal as the issue of moneylaundering or there being proceeds of crime had not surfaced before the Single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court. Before us, however, it had been brought to our notice by Mr. Rohatgi in course of hearing on the question of interim order passed in the instant special leave petitions, that the petitioner had been cooperating with investigation by the Enforcement Directorate and the CBI. While testing the legality of an arrest made by an agency otherwise empowered to take into custody a person against whom such agency considers subsistence of prima facie evidence of moneylaundering, the court do not think a general protective order directed at another investigating agency could have insulated the petitioner from any coercive action in another
proceeding started by a different agency, even if there are factual similarities visavis the allegations. Under The Prevention of MoneyLaundering Act, 2002 (“2002 Act”), money laundering is an independent offence and in the event there is any allegation of the Enforcement Directorate having acted beyond jurisdiction or their act of arrest is not authorized by law, the petitioner would be entitled to apply before the appropriate Court of law independently. But that question could not be examined in a Special Leave Petition arising from the proceedings in which the question of Money Laundering were not involved.
CASE NAME- Dr. Manik Bhattacharya Vs Ramesh Malik & Ors
CITATION- SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 1632516326 OF 2022
CORUM- Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath
DATE- 20.10.22
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
