Gujarat High Court
Vipin Kanaiyalal Chaturvedi vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2214/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION) NO. 2214 of 2024
==========================================================
VIPIN KANAIYALAL CHATURVEDI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR D K TRIVEDI(5283) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETVI H SANCHETI(5618) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MS ASMITA PATEL, APP Afor the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 09/04/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. D.K.Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Asmita Patel, learned APP for the respondent State and Ms. Hetvi
Sancheti, learned counsel for respondent No.2- DRI, Sub-Regional
Unit, Vapi, at length.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the
following main relief:-
"b. Your Honour may please issue appropriatewrit, order or
direction directing that no coercive action be taken against the
present petitioner in connection with (a) summons dated
03.01.2024 bearing No.CBIC-DIN-20240171MN000000C622
issued by Nishant Niraj, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI Sub
Regional Unit, Vapi, (b) Summons dated 06.01.2024 bearing
No.CBIC-DIN-20240171MN0000777C53 issued by Nishant Niraj,
Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI Sub Regional Unit, Vapi and (c)
Summons dated 06.01.2024 bearing No.CBIC-DIN-
20240171MN0000777C53 issued by Nishant Niraj, Senior
Intelligence Officer, DRI Sub Regional Unit, Vapi till the
adjudication with regard to the liability of the firms involving the
present petitioner is made and pass all other consequential
orders in that regard."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is consultant and he is doing custom clearance work with
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2214/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2024
undefined
regard to exports made by his clients and he has nothing to do with
the alleged offence. He further submitted that in the pretext of
summons, respondent No.2 authority is intended to effect his arrest.
However, the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation,
but he has apprehension of his arrest. Therefore, present petitioner
has approached this Court by present petition. Mr. Trivedi has relied
on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case of State
of Gujarat Vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
vehemently opposed the present petition and stated that such
blanket protection is not permissible in view of the law laid down in
a case of State of Gujarat Vs. Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer
& Anr, reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 552, wherein it is held that
no such relief or blanket protection can be granted. Further, she has
relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in a case
of Union of India Vs. Padam Narain Aggarwal & Ors, reported
in 2008 (13) SCC 305.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and
considering the law laid down in above cited decisions, this Court is
of considered view that as the petitioner is ready and willing to join
the investigation, it is appropriate to direct the petitioner to join the
investigation. In case of State of Gujarat Vs. Choodamani
Parmeshwaran Iyer & Anr. the Hon'ble Apex Court referred the
decision rendered in case of P.V.Ramana Vs. Union of India, in which
Para 42 reads as under:-
"42. In any case, the moment the commissioner has reasons to
believe that a person has committed a cognizable and non bailable
offence warranting his arrest, then we think that the safeguards
before arresting a person, as provided in sections 41 and 41A of
Cr.P.C, may have to be kept in mind."
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2214/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2024
undefined
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to remain
present before respondent No.2 - DRI, Sub-Regional Unit, Vapi on
15.04.2024. If the petitioner appears before the authority, in that
event, the respondent authority shall comply with the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the observations made in
a decision rendered in case of Choodamani Parmeshwaran Iyer
& Anr. Even respondent No.2 authority is duty bound to comply
with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a case of
D.K.Basu Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1997 SC
610. Para 30 there reads as under:-
"30. Apart from the police, there are several other governmental
authorities also like Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Directorate of Enforcement, Costal Guard, Central Reserve Police
Force (CRPF), Border Security Force (BSF), the Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF), the State Armed Police, Intelligence Agencies
like the Intelligence Bureau, R.A.W, Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) , CID, Tariff Police, Mounted Police and ITBP which have the
power to detain a person and to interrogated him in connection
with the investigation of economic offences, offences under the
Essential Commodities Act, Excise and Customs Act. Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act etc. There are instances of torture and
death in custody of these authorities as well, In re Death of
Sawinder Singh Grover [1995 Supp (4) SCC, 450], (to which Kuldip
Singh, j. was a party) this Court took suo moto notice of the death
of Sawinder Singh Grover during his custody with the Directorate of
Enforcement. After getting an enquiry conducted by the additional
District Judge, which disclosed a prima facie case for investigation
and prosecution, this Court directed the CBI to lodge a FIR and
initiate criminal proceeding against all persons named in the report
of the Additional District Judge and proceed against them. The
Union of India/Directorate of Enforcement was also directed to pay
sum of Rs. 2 lacs to the widow of the deceased by was of the
relevant provisions of law to protect the interest of arrested
persons in such cases too is a genuine need."
As directions issued therein are also binding to respondent
No.2 Department. Pursuant to said directions, respondent authority
has also issued the guidelines and directives for arrest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/SCR.A/2214/2024 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2024
undefined
7. With the above observation and direction, present petition is
disposed of. This Court has not gone into merit of the case. Direct
service is permitted.
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
SUCHIT
