Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Directorate Of Enforcement vs Sanjay Basu on 11 April, 2023
Bench: V. Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Mithal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. /2023
(@ SLP(CRL.) No.3863/2023)
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SANJAY BASU RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. The Directorate of Enforcement has come up with the above appeal, aggrieved by an interim order passed by the High Court of Calcutta in a Writ Petition filed by the respondent challenging the proceedings initiated against his client into which he has also been roped in.
The main grievance of the Enforcement Directorate as projected by the learned ASG, is to the last but 3 rd and 4th paragraphs of the impugned order which reads as follows:
“In response to the summons under Section 50(2) of the said Act, the petitioner has attended the office of the Enforcement Directorate several times. His office and residence have also been searched. For the time being there is no need of his being further summoned to the office of the Enforcement Directorate Signature Not Verified or his house and office being searched. Digitally signed by NIRMALA NEGI Date: 2023.04.13 14:39:05 IST Reason: 1 Till further orders, the petitioner shall not be required to attend the office of the Enforcement Directorate further to any summons nor any search or seizure in the residence or in the office premises of the petitioner shall be carried out without the leave of the court.” It is contended by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent that the respondent is an advocate who merely offered services for the client and that therefore he should not be harassed by the Enforcement Directorate. It appears that the FIR for predicate offence was against two entities by name Tower Infotech Ltd. and Pincon Group, who are alleged to have involved in ponzi scam. The respondent was a counsel for Pincon Group. Therefore, all that the respondent wants is that as a professional he should not be harassed.
It is true that the operative portion of the order passed by the High Court, cannot be approved, as it can never become a precedent in other cases to follow. The learned ASG submitted that as on date the pre-requisites of Section 19 are not there and that the respondent need not apprehend any difficulty at the hands of the Directorate of Enforcement.
In view of the said statement, the appeal is allowed, the portion of the impugned order extracted above, is set aside. However it is made clear that the respondent shall not be unnecessarily called and the search and seizure conducted without any basis.
2 The High Court is now free to decide the main Writ Petition in accordance with law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.......................J. ( V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN) .......................J. ( PANKAJ MITHAL ) NEW DELHI;
APRIL 11, 2023
RS
3
ITEM NO.18 COURT NO.15 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3863/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 15-03-2023 in WPA No. 6184/2023 passed by the High Court At Calcutta) DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. Petitioner(s) VERSUS SANJAY BASU Respondent(s) (FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.60678/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ) Date : 11-04-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.v. Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Ms. Sairica Raju, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Agarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Debal Banerjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv.
Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Aprajita Jamwal, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv. Mr. Arshiya Ghose, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Abhik Chimni, Adv.
Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv. Ms. Vijeta Raj, Adv.4
Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv.
Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv. Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv.
Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order which is placed on the file.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (RENU BALA GAMBHIR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH) 5