Gujarat High Court
Digvijay Mishra S/O Lal Sharma Mishra vs B S Chauhan Addl Superintendent Of ... on 4 July, 2024
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 2021 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
===============================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
DIGVIJAY MISHRA S/O LAL SHARMA MISHRA
Versus
B S CHAUHAN ADDL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. MANISH GUPTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR AKASHKUMAR H
PATEL(12877) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RC KODEKAR(1395) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 04/07/2024
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned counsel Mr. R.C.Kodekar waives service of rule on behalf of respondent.
Page 1 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined
2. This petition is filed under Section 12 r/w Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act r/w Article 215 of the Constitution of India praying for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondent for not complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Arnesh Kumar v/s. State of Bihar, reported in, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and order dated 11.07.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Satender Kumar Antil v/s. CBI & Anr., reported in, 2022 SCC Online SC 825.
3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant was issued under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code") dated 12.10.2023 in connection with Case No.RC0292022A0019 dated 21.12.2022 registered with CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar under the provisions of Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. According to the applicant, the issuance of such notice was sent to the office of the applicant, who was then under suspension and vide Office Memorandum of the office of the applicant, the same was supplied to the applicant. According to the applicant, issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Code is not meeting with the requirement of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as Delhi High Court and the standing orders of Delhi Police and Gujarat Police. It is submitted that though the respondent is bound to be aware of the law laid down by the Apex Court, deliberately notice under Section 41A of the Code is issued with malafide intention and in prejudicial manner with an intention to deprive the applicant of his personal liberty.
4.1 It is submitted that issuing such notice to the applicant through his employer, is an attempt on the part of the respondent to malign the image of the applicant. Learned advocate submitted that the issuance of notice is after a period of ten months of registration of an FIR No.RC0292022A0019 Page 2 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined dated 21.12.2022. The notice had asked the applicant to appear before the respondent on 19.10.2023 at his office at Gandhinagar. It is argued that the Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar (Supra) has referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in case of Amandeep Singh Johar v/s. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr, in W.P. (C) No.7608 of 2017 and therefore, the respondent ought to have complied with such directions of issuing notice under Section 41A of the Code. It is submitted by learned advocate that notice which is required to be issued under Section 41A of Code has to be issued in a proforma which is part of the standing order issued by the Delhi Police in view of the directions of the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar (Supra). It is submitted that in para-15 of the Amandeep Singh Johar (Supra) judgment, a modal of Section 41A notice has been mentioned and therefore, the notice which is required to be issued ought to have been issued in this format alone, whereas the notice issued by this respondent to the applicant is certainly not as per the said format.
4.2 It is particularly submitted so that the format adopted by the standing order of the Delhi Police consists of acknowledgment and when there is no acknowledgment mentioned alongwith the notice issued by the respondent, the said amounts to willful disobedience by the respondent.
5. As against this, learned Counsel Mr. R.C.Kodekar appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation has submitted that there was no intention to commit breach of the orders of the Apex Court or any High Court and the respondent has no intention to commit contempt. The petitioner is involved in a serious offense and against whom, an FIR has already been registered being Case No.RC0292022A0003 dated 15.07.2022 towards demand and accepting bribe of Rs.10 Lakhs. From the residential premises of the petitioner, an unaccounted cash of Rs.20,75,000/- was recovered and in connection with this case, the present proceedings of disproportionate Page 3 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined assets being DA Case No.RC0292022A0019 was registered on 21.12.2022 by CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar for offenses punishable under Sections 109 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(b) Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018). It is in this connection that the notice under Section 41A of the Code was issued in due course to secure the presence of the applicant and as the applicant was the Chief General Manager in National Highway Authority of India, such notice under Section 41A of the Code was routed through the employer.
5.1 It is submitted that the applicant was asked to appear on 19.10.2023, in response to which the applicant had communicated to the respondent by his E-mail dated 19.10.2023 and has requested for a reasonable time to appear in the first week of November-2023. Once again, the respondent had communicated the date by E-mail dated 25.10.2023, requesting the applicant to attend the investigation on 02.11.2023. This communication of a new date of 02.11.2023 was also through employer of the petitioner. In response to the aforesaid communication, the applicant addressed a E-mail dated 31.10.2023, indicating that the applicant has preferred an application before the High Court of Gujarat against such notice and the same is likely to be listed in first week of November-2023 and therefore, had sought exemption to appear on 02.11.2023.
5.2 It is submitted that the applicant did file such Special Civil Application before this Court as the same was not entertained, the applicant has withdrawn such petition before the High Court. It is submitted that despite all the efforts made, the applicant has not appeared before the Investigating Officer, but appears to dictate the terms of investigation. It is submitted that the petitioner was though required to remain present, he had forwarded the documents that he wanted to produce for investigation via E-mail which the Investigating Officer has already accepted, but his Page 4 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined presence was required for explaining the documents which were supplied by him and for that purpose only and to secure the presence in this regard, notice for appearance under Section 41A of the Code was issued. It is lastly submitted that the application is of the direction issued in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) is made applicable to the offenses which are punishable upto seven years, whereas maximum sentence provided for section for which applicant is sought to be prosecuted is ten years.
6. As against this, during the course of argument, learned advocate for the applicant made statement that the applicant has already joined the investigation and therefore, the issuance of notice under Section 41A of the code was with malafide intentions.
7. As the learned advocate has made this statement on fact, it was deemed appropriate to call for the explanation of the respondent-CBI with regard to the status of where the applicant has already joined the investigation. With reference to the aforesaid, an affidavit is filed by the respondent dated 02.07.2024 which is ordered to be taken on record and the matter was posted on next day i.e. 04.07.2024 to enable the applicant to make submission in this regard.
8. When the matter was taken up today, learned advocate for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has contended that there is no compliance of requirement of Section 41A of the Code and therefore, it was not required for the applicant to appear in response to such notice and the question of appearance before him would only arise if such a notice is, the notice as per the requirement of law.
9. Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is a case where the applicant Chief General Manager (Tech.) Regional Office at Gandhinagar) indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in connivance with certain representatives of the private Page 5 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined companies working in NHAI projects was allegedly involved in corrupt practice and therefore, caught red handed on 15.07.2022 while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,00,000/- for which case No.RC0292022A0003 was registered on 15.07.2022. During the search in connection with the aforesaid offense, from the residential premises unaccounted cash of Rs.20,75,000/- was recovered and incriminating documents of immobile properties and investment in movable properties were also found. In view of the aforesaid recovery, Disproportionate Assets Case No.RC02920022A0019 was registered with CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar on 21.12.2022.
10. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant and his family have amassed disproportionate assets from the check period between 01.09.2020 to 15.07.2022 to the tune of Rs.3,16,49,920/- which is 510.09% disproportionate assets to their know sources of incomes.
11. During the course of investigation, incriminating documents from the Banks, Trust and Registrar's were collected and statements of number of witnesses were recorded which would indicate that the applicant and his family have acquired immovable properties at Delhi, Ghaziabad, Noida and Gorakhpur. This money was used for acquiring immovable properties were routed through different accounts and hence, for the purpose of understanding the documents available during the course of investigation, presence of applicant was required. The notice dated 12.10.2023 was for appearing before the Investigating Officer which contained detail regarding office, case number as well as relevant sections for which presence was required. This notice dated 12.10.2023 was addressed to the applicant through its employer, the Joint Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Government of India. The employer in turn issued Office Memorandum dated 16.10.2023, addressed to the applicant at his residential address to attend the office of the Investigating Officer on 19.10.2023.
Page 6 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined
12. On 19.10.2023, the applicant sent a E-mail to the Investigating Officer, wherein he indicated that the value of certain immovable properties was wrongly recorded and that the notice issued is in violation of the judgment in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar (Supra). The communication also requested for reasonable time to appear in first week of November-2023. In response to the aforesaid E-mail, the respondent issued communication dated 25.10.2023 again through the employer of the applicant giving a new date on 02.11.2023. On 26.10.2023, the employer of the applicant issued Office Memorandum calling upon the applicant to appear before the Investigating Officer on 02.11.2023. On 31.10.2023, the applicant addressed a communication to the Investigating Officer requesting for exemption to appear on 02.11.2023 and has also mentioned in the aforesaid communication that the issuance of notice under Section 41A of the Code by the respondent is challenged by the applicant before the Gujarat High Court. It is stated therein that the applicant has challenged the same on the ground that the notice is not in compliance of the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. At this stage, it would be pertinent to observe that the applicant had filed Special Criminal Application No.14802 of 2023, which was presented on 23.10.2023 and was registered on 04.11.2023 praying for relief as under:-
" (b) Issue a writ of certioari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned notice under Section 41-A CrPC dated 12.10.2023 issued by the Respondent, and/or;
(c) Issue a writ of certioari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing of FIR No.RC0292022A0019 dated 21.12.2022 registered u/s 109 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar and/or;
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to stay the proceedings in and arising out of FIR No.RC0292022A0019 dated 21.12.2022 registered u/s 109 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 by CBI, ACB, Gandhinagar till the pendency of the present Page 7 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined proceedings and/or;
(e) Grant ad interim ex-parte stay on the effect and operation of the impugned notice under Section 41-A CrPC dated 12.10.2023 issued by the Respondent till the pendency of the present proceeding and/or;
(f) XXXXXX"
14. This petition came to be disposed by an order dated 30.11.2023, which would read as under:
"After arguing for some time, learned advocate for the applicant, seeks permission to withdraw the present application at this stage with a liberty to file appropriate proceedings at the appropriate stage before the appropriate Court.
Permission, as prayed for, is granted. The present application stands disposed of as withdrawn with above liberty.
It is hereby made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter"
15. The applicant has filed the present application, wherein the first order was passed on 08.11.2023 for supplying the advanced copy to the learned Assistant Government Pleader and the matter was listed on 30.11.2023. On 30.11.2023, at the request of learned AGP, it was re-listed on 05.12.2023. As learned counsel who was to appear on behalf of CBI as the State of Gujarat was not a party, this Court recorded presence of learned counsel for the CBI on 05.12.2023 and notice came to be issued by this Court on 14.12.2023.
16. The Court may take into consideration the argument made by learned advocate for the applicant by referring to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Amandeep Singh Johar (Supra) case which construed the model notice to be issued under Section 41A of the Code. This model notice finds reference to the suggestions on implementation of the status report of the Registrar General of the Court dated 03.11.2017 and 02.12.2017 which was handed over on 19.01.2018. This judgment records in substance the recommendation made in the report. Section 13(2) which provides for any Page 8 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined public servant who commits misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for the term which shall not be less than four years, but which may extend upto ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
17. According to the applicant, to contend that the notice under Section 41A of the Code is not in compliance with the order of the Apex Court only on the ground that the said notice is not in a model format which is a part of the standing order of Delhi Police and also accepted by the Gujarat Police. The said model format requires the police to mention several requirements including acknowledgment portion.
18. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and the purpose behind issuing such direction. Para-11 specifies the intention behind the direction is to ensure that the police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorize detention casually and mechanically, directions were issued. Those directions were issued in the case, where the applicant therein had apprehended arrest under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act arising out of family dispute. Nonetheless, the Apex Court has also made the directions applicable to all the cases where offenses are punishable with imprisonment for term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years.
19. Considering the sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act invoked against the applicant, the sentence provided for is of ten years. Therefore, per-se, the directions contained in the judgment in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) may not be strictly applied to the facts of the case. The Delhi High Court thereafter, disposed of the petition and directed as under:-
"16. It is directed that the above procedure shall apply also to the working of Sections 91, 160 and 175 of the CrPC as well. The above procedure shall be mandatorily followed by the Delhi Police when working the requirements of all the above noted sections.
Page 9 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined
17. The respondent no.2 shall issue a circular forthwith upon receipt of a copy of this order directing the strict compliance of the procedure laid above, by every police personnel. The Circular shall be also posted on the official website of the Delhi Police and effective publicity given to ensure that the public is apprised of the procedure which has to be followed.
18. The necessary features of the Circular shall be prominently displayed at all police stations in English and vernacular to enable every person who visits the police station of the procedure which has to be followed.
19. The present writ petition is a laudable effort on the part of a petitioner who, though facing criminal prosecution, has opted to pursue larger public interest and to bring some transparency to the manner of police functioning.
20. We also place on record our deep appreciation for the assistance tendered by Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned ASG; Mr. Nikhil Borwankar, Advocate; Mr. Satyakam, learned ASC-GNCTD and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, the Registrar General of this court in assisting this court in the formation of effective guidelines which shall go a long way in ensuring transparency in the working of the police machinery and ensuring justice to suspect accused persons as well as those required to appear before the police."
20. The Delhi Police came out with a standing order No.109 of 2020 and it prescribed a Performa of notice under Section 41A of the Code (Page-52). Similarly, even the Gujarat Police issued a standing order No.1 of 2023 dated 08/10.02.2023 from the office of DG and IG Police (Law and Order Division) and this also prescribed Performa for notice under Section 41A of the Code (Page-115).
21. The Apex Court in case of Satender Kumar (Supra) decided on 11.07.2022 had issued certain directions which would read as under:-
"SUMMARY/CONCLUSION
73. In conclusion, we would like to issue certain directions. These directions are meant for the investigating agencies and also for the courts. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions, which may be subject to State amendments.:
a) The Government of India may consider the introduction of a separate enactment in the nature of a Bail Act so as to streamline the grant of bails.Page 10 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined
b) The investigating agencies and their officers are duty-bound to comply with the mandate of Section 41 and 41A of the Code and the directions issued by this Court in Arnesh Kumar (supra). Any dereliction on their part has to be brought to the notice of the higher authorities by the court followed by appropriate action.
c) The courts will have to satisfy themselves on the compliance of Section 41 and 41A of the Code. Any non-compliance would entitle the accused for grant of bail.
d) All the State Governments and the Union Territories are directed to facilitate standing orders for the procedure to be followed under Section 41 and 41A of the Code while taking note of the order of the High Court of Delhi dated 07.02.2018 in Writ Petition (C) No. 7608 of 2018 and the standing order issued by the Delhi Police i.e. Standing Order No. 109 of 2020, to comply with the mandate of Section 41A of the Code.
e) There need not be any insistence of a bail application while considering the application under Section 88, 170, 204 and 209 of the Code.
f) There needs to be a strict compliance of the mandate laid down in the judgment of this court in Siddharth (supra).
g) The State and Central Governments will have to comply with the directions issued by this Court from time to time with respect to constitution of special courts. The High Court in consultation with the State Governments will have to undertake an exercise on the need for the special courts. The vacancies in the position of Presiding Officers of the special courts will have to be filled up expeditiously.
h) The High Courts are directed to undertake the exercise of finding out the undertrial prisoners who are not able to comply with the bail conditions. After doing so, appropriate action will have to be taken in light of Section 440 of the Code, facilitating the release.
i) While insisting upon sureties the mandate of Section 440 of the Code has to be kept in mind.
j) An exercise will have to be done in a similar manner to comply with the mandate of Section 436A of the Code both at the district judiciary level and the High Court as earlier directed by this Court in Bhim Singh (supra), followed by appropriate orders.
k) Bail applications ought to be disposed of within a period of two weeks except if the provisions mandate otherwise, with the exception being an intervening application. Applications for anticipatory bail are expected to be disposed of within a period of six weeks with the exception of any intervening application.
Page 11 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined
l) All State Governments, Union Territories and High Courts are directed to file affidavits/ status reports within a period of four months."
22. The entire purport of the directions issued by the Apex Court is to prevent the reckless action on the part of the police in the investigation so as to attack the personal liberty of a citizen and as a precaution these directions have been issued. The facts of the case are not such where the respondent is in the process of illegally detained the applicant. The communication was made to the applicant through the employer and the applicant had also responded to such notice seeking time to remain present before the officer as per the convenience of the applicant which was also allowed by the respondent.
23. The Court therefore, is of the view that the act on the part of the respondent may not be construed as a deliberate attempt to defy the order of the Apex Court rather the applicant has been given full opportunity to appear. The applicant has also challenged the issuance of notice before this Court in separate proceedings, where he did not succeed and now it appears that the applicant is trying to take shelter behind the technicalities, like not issuing notice under Section 41A of the Code as per the format in standing order to avoid joining investigation. Of course, the Court does not ratify the act on the part of the respondent in not issuing notice under Section 41A of the Code in a prescribed format, but at the same time, the Court is not inclined to initiate contempt proceedings at the behest of the applicant. One more aspect which the Court may consider is during the course of submission, tall argument was made that the applicant had joined the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer. Nowhere in the pleadings, the applicant stated on affidavit that in response to the notice under Section 41A of the Code, the applicant had appeared before the Investigating Officer and joined the investigation. In response to such arguments orally being made, it was imperative to call for the facts in this regard and therefore, an affidavit came to be filed by the respondent, Page 12 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined wherein, in paras-5 and 6 it is stated as under:-
"5. That, the said case is being investigated by the undersigned and during investigation allegation levelled against the applicant accused have been corroborated for which the presence of the applicant accused was required and for which notice u/s section 41-A Cr.P.C. was issued. The same was served and acknowledged by the applicant. Despite of the service of the notice, applicant accused didn't join the investigation and sought reasonable time to join the investigation, preferably in the first week of Nov'2023. Considering the request of applicant accused, time was granted by !O to the applicant accused and he was asked through e-mail to join the investigation on 02.11.2023 but applicant accused didn't join the investigation and rather preferred Misc. Civil Application (Contempt) No. 2021/2023 against the investigating officer challenging the validity of notice issued u/s section 41A Cr.P.C. The detailed reply to this application has already been filed vide affidavit dated 12 December, 2023.
6. That hearing of the case was fixed on 01.07.2024 and during argument, the Ld. Counsel for the applicant accused has argued before the Hon'ble High Court that the applicant accused has already furnished documents to the Investigation officer. The Hon'ble High Court by oral order directed that an affidavit to this effect has to be filed by the Investigating Officer. The above mentioned contention made by the Ld. Counsel of the applicant accused is denied and it is humbly submitted that the applicant accused has neither complied with to the notice U/s 41 A Cr.P.C. nor supplied any documents to the- undersigned since inception of this case either at CBI office or Court Campus. It is further clarified that another CBI case RC 0292022A0003 against the applicant accused was investigated by another IO and charge sheet to that effect has already been filed before the Spl. CBI Court Ahmedabad."
24. When this affidavit was taken on record on 03.07.2023 and the matter was posted on the next day i.e. on 04.07.2024, written submission objecting to the affidavit filed by the respondent-CBI was given an in para-4 of such submission, the applicant has stated as under:-
"4. That in spite of this, the Petitioner Coooperated with the ongoing investigation and appeared before the Investigating Officer in compliance of such illegal notice and supplied the required documents. However, to the shock and surprise of the Petitioner, the Respondent dis not issue the acknowledgment of appearance to the Petitioner despite several requests which is further in violation of the Page 13 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined Standing Order No.1 of 203 issued by State of Gujarat and judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi."
25. The applicant is therefore, shifting his stand now by raising an issue that that the acknowledgment with regard to his presence before the Investigating Officer was not given by the Investigating Officer, whereas in his pleadings throughout, nowhere such a stand is taken. The only averment made with regard to the acknowledgment is that alongwith the notice issued to the applicant, there is no proforma acknowledgment attached. It is pertinent to observe that the applicant who was very much live to his own rights, as he has entered into E-mail communication with the Investigating Officer, the Court is not prepared to believe that if the respondent has failed to issue acknowledgment on his presence in response to notice under Section 41A of the Code, the applicant would not have resorted to take necessary steps by communicating with the respondent about his presence before him in response to notice under Section 41A of the Code.
26. The Court is of the view that the stand of the applicant does not appear to be bonafide and only with a view to have an upper hand while facing the investigation pursuant to duly registered offenses the applicant has filed two separate petitions for identical reliefs, one being disposed of already as per the order referred hereinabove.
27. Before parting, the Court may direct that the respondent-CBI may direct that the respondent-CBI may bring this format of notice issued by the respondent to the notice of the superior officer to the respondent and the superior officer to the respondent to act in accordance with law. The respondent through his counsel has already apologized, still the respondent shall place on record a written apology for issuing a notice which is not in prescribed format adopted by his department and henceforth, in the present case as and when necessary shall issue notice to the applicant in a prescribed format in accordance with law.
Page 14 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/2021/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2024 undefined
28. Before parting, the Court may also issue direction to the State Government and CBI. Therefore, the Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Secretary, Home Department, Director General of Police, Gujarat State, Director of Prosecution, Gujarat State and the CBI to pass necessary directions to adhere to the law laid down/directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and in case of Satender Kumar (Supra).
29. With the aforesaid observations, the application deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (SAMIR J. DAVE,J) SIDDHARTH Page 15 of 15 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 26 20:56:28 IST 2024