Gauhati High Court
Subhra Jyoti Bharali vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 23 June, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010111202022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : W.P.(Crl.)/22/2022
SUBHRA JYOTI BHARALI
SON OF BHABANANDA BHARALI, RESIDENT OF LANKESWAR, PASCHIM
JALUKBARI, GUWAHATI-781014, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001.
2:THE DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
PRAVARTAN BHAWAN
DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM ROAD
NEW DELHI-110011.
3:THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
GUWAHATI
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
HOUSE NO. 20
RAJGARH ROAD
BYE LANE NO. 1
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003.
4:RAJ KUMAR RAM
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
GUWAHATI
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Page No.# 2/4
HOUSE NO. 20
RAJGARH ROAD
BYE LANE NO. 1
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003.
5:NAVEEN GUPTA
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
GUWAHATI
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
HOUSE NO. 20
RAJGARH ROAD
BYE LANE NO. 1
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003.
6:DIBYENDU MAN
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE
GUWAHATI
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
HOUSE NO. 20
RAJGARH ROAD
BYE LANE NO. 1
CHANDMARI
GUWAHATI-781003
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DAS SR. ADV
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BORTHAKUR
ORDER
23.06.2022
Heard Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Enforcement Directorate.
The grievance of the petitioner, who is the Managing Director of Industrial
Page No.# 3/4
Co-operative Bank Limited, Guwahati, is that the search and seizure etc.
conducted by the respondents No. 4, 5 and 6, the Assistant Directors of
Enforcement Directorate, Guwahati at his residence at Lankeswar, Guwahati on
31.03.2022 was without following the due process of law as mandated under
the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Prevention of Money
Laundering (Forms, Search and Seizure or Freezing and the Manner of
Forwarding the Reasons and Material to the Adjudicating Authority, Impounding
and Custody of Records and the Period of Retention) Rules, 2005. The petitioner
has contended that the aforesaid search and seizure conducted in breach of the
prescribed statutory procedure provided in the said Act amounted to violation of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Moving the Writ Petition, Mr. D. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has basically relied on the following judgments rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court- 1. Kishan Chand Vs. State of Haryana, reported in
(2013) 2 SCC 502; 2. Opto Circuit India Limited Vs. Axis Bank and Ors.,
reported in (2021) 6 SCC 707 and the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Rangoon High Court in AIR 1925 RANGOON 205(1).
Opposing the petition, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Enforcement
Directorate, has relevantly referred to the contents of Enforcement Case
Information Report; three number of Authorization Search Warrants, dated
31.05.2022; the letter issued by the Deputy General Manager, R.B.I., dated
15.11.2021 addressed to the Chairman, Industrial Co-operative Bank Limited;
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in- the Asst. Director
Enforcement Directorate Vs. Dr. V.C. Mohan, in Criminal Appeal No. 21/2022
decided on 04.01.2022; Raj Kumar Shivhare Vs. Assistant Director, Directorate
Page No.# 4/4
of Enforcement & Anr., reported in (2010) 4 SCC 772; the letter, dated
01.06.2022 forwarded by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate,
Guwahati to the Chairperson, Adjudicating Authority (PMLA), New Delhi
regarding the reasons to believe along with the materials under Section 17(2) of
PMLA, 2002 in connection with search conducted in the premises of the
petitioner and R.B.I.'s supervision report findings on Industrial Co-operative
Bank Limited, Guwahati under Section 35(1A) of the Banking Regulation Act,
1949. Mr. Dhar strenuously submits that the search and seizure conducted in
the residence of the petitioner was done strictly following the statutory provision
provided in Section 17 of the PMLA, 2002 and also raised the issue of
maintainability of the instant writ petition in view of the jurisdiction of the
Adjudicating Authority for redressal of grievances of the aggrieved person. Mr.
Dhar sought time to file affidavit-in-opposition.
As Mr. R. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel, Enforcement Directorate has
received notice on behalf of the respondents/E.D., no notice needs to be issued
to the respondents. However, a copy of the instant writ petition along with the
documents annexed thereto, be furnished to him within 2(two) days.
The respondents shall file their response.
List the matter, after the ensuing summer vacation (01.07.2022 to
17.07.2022), on 21.07.2022.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
