Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(vi) Though the 2nd respondent claim in his pleadings statement that a statement was taken by the 1st petitioner on 11.4.2012, it has been clearly stated by the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the 5th respondent that even a copy of the said statement was never forwarded to the 5th respondent before passing of the confirmation order. Therefore, the crucial aspects that flows from this is that the statement was never been effectively considered in its proper perspective by the 5th respondent. A perusal of the said statement reveals that it is an unsigned statement and that it is said to have been made on 11.4.2012. Obviously this could only be a mistake. The crime in question was registered only on 19.10.2012 and Anx.A-8 agreement for sale was executed on 18.10.2012. Therefore, the statement from the 1st petitioner-Jose could not have been taken on 11.4.2012.

(vii) No enquiry is seen conducted by the 2nd respondent to ascertain from the petitioners herein, who are partners of the 8th respondent's firm, as to whether Anx.A-8 agreement was subsequently cancelled or whether the moneys were returned, etc. Anx.A-8 agreement for sale was executed on 18.10.2012. Even if it is assumed that the unsigned statement of the 1st petitioner was taken on 11.4.2013, still the 2nd respondent had plenty of time to ascertain as to what has transpired in the transaction at least after 11.4.2013. This lapse is all the more serious as there was no constraint of time for the 2nd respondent in completing the enquiry and as a matter of fact he has passed the freezing order as per Anx.A-3 only on 20.1.2015. Therefore, lack of time could not be a justifiable excuse for the 2nd respondent to explain such a serious lapse.