Delhi High Court
Ratul Puri vs Directorate Of Enforcement ... on 21 August, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: August 09, 2019
Pronounced on: August 21, 2019
+ CRL.M.C. 3945/2019 & CRL.M.A. 33252/2019
RATUL PURI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vijay Aggarwal, Ms. Barkha
Rastogi, Ms. Shephalie Ahlawat,
Ms. Shakshi Pandey & Mr.
Shekhar, Advocates.
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. D.P. Singh, Special Public
Prosecutor with Mr. Amit
Mahajan, CGSC with Mr. B.
Naveen Kumar, Mr. Manu Mishra
& Ms. Mallika, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
Impugned order of 6th August, 2019, declines to supply petitioner's
statement recorded under Section 50(2) of The Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that bare reading of
Section 50 (2) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 reveals
that the proceedings conducted under aforesaid provision are of civil
nature and these proceedings are infact judicial proceedings. So, it was
submitted that there is no embargo to supply the petitioner's statement
recorded under Section 50 (2) of The Prevention of Money Laundering
Act, 2002 which consists of 100 pages or so.
Attention of this Court was drawn to sub-sections (2) & (3) of
Section 50 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to submit
that the statements recorded under this provision are judicial proceedings
and so, there is no bar to supply copy of these statements. It was pointed
out that there is a presumption of truth attached to the statements recorded
under Section 50 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
whereas, no such presumption is attached to the statement recorded under
Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and after the investigation, the statements recorded
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are supplied to the accused. Thus, quashing
of impugned order was sought while relying upon Supreme Court's
decision in 'K.T. Advani Vs. The State 1984 SCC Online Del 40.
On the contrary, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent
supported the impugned order and relied upon Supreme Court's decision
in 'Union of India and Another Vs. W.N. Chadha' 1993 Supp (4) SCC
260, to seek dismissal of this petition.
Submissions advanced have been duly considered. Impugned order
as well as decisions cited have been perused and thereupon, I find that the
investigation in this sensitive case is in progress and is at a crucial stage.
Rules of Natural Justice cannot be invoked at this stage as an accused has
no say in the manner and method of investigation. Under the Code of
Criminal Procedure, statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are
not supplied during the course of investigation and are supplied alongwith
the charge-sheet filed.
Needless to say that in the instant case also, after completion of
investigation in this case, copy of petitioner's statement under Section 50
of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would be supplied.
Petitioner is accused of an offence under The Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 which poses serious threat not only to the financial
system of the country but also its integrity and sovereignty.
Keeping in view the object of The Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 refusal to supply petitioner's statement recorded
under Section 50 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to
him at this initial stage is justified. This Court is of the considered view
that it would not be in the interest of justice to direct supply of
petitioner's statement under Section 50 of The Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002 to him when the investigation of this case is at a
crucial stage.
Consequentially, finding no infirmity in the impugned order, this
petition and application are accordingly dismissed while not commenting
on the merits of this case.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
AUGUST 21, 2019
p'ma
