Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Bhaskar Das Gupta And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 30 March, 2015
Author: Soumitra Pal
Bench: Soumitra Pal
1
W.P. 4059(W) of 2015
30 .3. 2015
Bhaskar Das Gupta and others
Versus
Union of India and others
Mr. Sudipto Moitra, Senior Advocate
Mr. Subhas Bhattacharya,
Mr. Arindam Das,
Mr. Biswajit Sarkar,
Mrs. Sushmita Ghosh,
..for the petitioners.
Mr. Pranab Kumar Dutta, Senior Advocate
Mr. Moloy Roy,
..for the State.
Mr. Hirak Kumar Mitra, Senior Advocate
Mr. Rupak Ghose,
Mr. Shyamantak Banerjee,
..for SEBI.
Mrs. Sanjukta Bhattacharya,
..for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Kishore Dutta, Senior Advocate Mr. Gourav Das, ..for the respondent no. 16.
The matter was taken up on 27th March, 2015 when Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned senior advocate for the respondent no. 16 was requested to take instruction with regard to issuance of bonds dated 2nd March, 2015 and 25th March, 2015 and regarding the sealing of the office. Relying on the judgements of the Supreme Court delivered on 12th September, 2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 1765 of 2011 (Jakia Nasim Ahesan and another vs. State of Gujarat and others) and in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation 2 Limited and others vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India and another : (2013) 1 SCC 1, it is submitted that the writ court cannot monitor the investigation conducted by the CBI, Enforcement Department, SEBI and the State authorities and thus the writ petition is not maintainable. Moreover, under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, particularly under section 149 thereof, the police authorities have enough power to take action. However, on a query, the answer is not clear as to who had issued the certificates dated 2nd March, 2015 and 25th March, 2015.
Mr. Hirak Kumar Mitra, learned senior advocate for SEBI submits that from time to time his clients have issued interim orders and attachment orders which, it appears, have not been complied with. Moreover from the tenor of the argument advanced by Mr. Sudipto Moitra, learned senior advocate for the petitioners as well as Mr Kishore Dutta, it is evident that the respondent no.16 might have opened fresh bank accounts.
Mr. Moitra submits that though time was sought for on behalf of the respondent no.16, as there is no fruitful answer as to who had issued the certificates, order may be passed for sealing the office of the respondent no.16.
Heard parties. Since there is virtually no answer as to who had issued the certificates, in the interest of justice, I direct the Director General of Police, West Bengal, Kolkata and the Commissioner of Police, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate, Kolkata, the respondent nos. 8 and 11 to seal the offices of the respondent no.16 at Lake Town, Kolkata and Jhargram, West Midnapore, as mentioned in page 15 of the writ petition and also the other offices in the State within 24 hours from the date of receiving a copy of the order downloaded from the official server of the High Court. After the office is sealed, SEBI, CBI, the State authorities and the 3 Enforcement Department shall make an inventory of the documents and/or records. Since it appears from the submission of the learned senior advocate for the SEBI, that in spite of the orders of attachment, bank accounts have been opened and operated and as the learned senior advocate for the respondent no.16 is clueless about the issuance of certificates and consequently where the money has been deposited, the Investigating authorities, be it SEBI, CBI, Enforcement Department or State authorities shall attach the bank accounts forthwith in the greater interest of the depositors. The respondent no.16 within 48 hours from the date of communication of this order shall intimate each of the respondent authorities whether they have opened fresh bank accounts and if the answer is in the affirmative, the said investigating agencies shall also take steps for attachment of the said accounts forthwith. It is made clear that this order is passed in the interest of justice and the point of maintainability shall be heard on the next date of hearing. So far as the issue of attachment of the properties is concerned, since it is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.16 that a proceeding is pending before the High Court and an order of restraint has been passed, no order is passed to that effect.
Matter to appear as "Listed Motion" in the Combined Monthly List of June, 2015. Let copies of certificates /bonds filed be kept on record.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished on priority basis.
(Soumitra Pal, J. ) 4