Bombay High Court
Yusuf Razak Dhanani vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 3 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2003(153)ELT522(BOM)
Author: J.G. Chitre
Bench: J.G. Chitre
JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J.
1. Shri Gawankar submitted that the applicant No. 1 is absconding. He was doing business in Bombay and thereafter he had gone to London on 13th October, 2001 and did the business there and at present he has come to Dubai and is likely to come to Bombay. He further submitted that on 21st of September, 2001 his statement has been recorded by the DRI office and, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that applicant No. 1 was absconding. He submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. He further submitted that applicant No. 1's wife and son are also apprehending that they would be arrested for the purpose of investigation in respect of the offence which has been alleged against applicant No. 1 - Yusuf Dhanani. He further submitted that the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the firm who are alleged to have been involved in alleged fraud committed by applicant No. 1.
2. Shri Mehta submitted that applicant No. 1 has masterminded the entire fraud. He submitted that he is the mastermind behind the activities which are alleged to be fraudulent. He further submitted that after obtaining the high quality chemicals applicant No. 1 used to change it and make it low grade chemicals and used to export it. Shri Mehta further submitted that such chemical is less priced and therefore by doing all these activities applicant No. 1 has earned wrongful gain of amount which goes to one crore forty lacs. He further submitted that the attempts were made by the Department to serve the notices on him but as he was not available, the notices could not be served on him but they were served on his family members. Shri Mehta submitted that custodial interrogation is very much necessary in this case because he is to be taken to various places where the Investigation Officer would be getting the information.
3. Shri Mehta placed reliance on the judgment of the Single Judge Bench of this Court in the matter of Harshad Mehta v. Union of India and anr. reported in 1982 Cr.L.J. 4032 wherein it has been held by the Single Bench of this Court that when investigation is to be done in respect of the bank scam, the accused should be in custody in public interest. It has been also held by the Single Bench of this Court that in the public interest Enforcement Directorate ought to be given full and proper opportunity to effectively investigate into the FERA offences.
4. The ratio of this judgment is to be understood keeping in view a different set of facts and circumstances. That was the case which was dealing with FERA offence or offences. In the present case the prosecution is sure that applicant No. 1 obtained high quality chemicals, changed it and made it low quality and exported it by showing that, it was high quality chemical and earned lot of money. Obviously this case is pertaining to examination of documents and, therefore, this court does not find that custodial interrogation is necessary. For safeguarding the interest of investigating machinery and public interest, the applicant No. 1 can be directed to attend the office of the investigating agency per day for three weeks for helping the investigating agency to get the information from him by visiting various places. He can be asked to explain the documents and the entries made by him or on his behalf if the documents are shown to him. But that doesn't mean that he is to be detained for hours together in the office of the Department every day. The applicant No. 1 should attend the office of the Department between 11.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. As there is no objection for granting the anticipatory bail to applicant Nos. 2 and 3 keenly, their case would be totally different.
5. In the result, this application is allowed. The investigating officers of DRI are hereby directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants they be released on bail on furnishing security to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-each with one surety and PR bond to that extent. The applicant No. 1 to attend the office of DRI daily between 11.30 am. to 1.00 p.m. for three weeks. The applicants are directed not to threaten contact or induce any of the prosecution witnesses. They should not also damage or tear the documents if shown to them.
6. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Registrar of this Court.