Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr. Phiroze Edulji, on other hand produced a notification by the Judicial Secretary which reflects that the authority was vested with the Vacation Judge, Paschim Bardhaman in respect of offences under the P.C. Act, NDPS Act as also other special act. To that aspect the notification so placed before this court suffies the fact that the Vacation Judge, Paschim Bardhaman had the authority to consider the prayer as advanced by the Enforcement Directorate.

However coming back to the prayers which were advanced in this revisional application certain issues are to be considered as contained in this revisional application itself. So far as ECIR/KLZO/41/2020 is concerned the Court having jurisdiction or the designated Court having authority to decide the merits of the case and where complaint and supplementary complaint was filed is the Court at Delhi being Learned Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI)-18, Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi. The said Court refused to grant production warrant relying upon the decision of Harshad S. Mehta Vs. CBI and it was the opinion of the Special Court that the provisions of Section 267 of the Cr.P.C. for production of the accused cannot be taken assistance of in view of the pronouncement made therein by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in its order dated 01.10.1992. The decision relied upon by the learned Special Court is debatable in view of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Ram Swarath Yadav Vs. State reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Cal 17: (2007) 1 CHN 289. The very starting sentence of sub- section (1) of Section 267 and Clause (a) of Section 267(1) refers to the terms "enquiry, trial or other proceeding" and "for the purpose of any proceeding against him". The Calcutta High Court judgment in paragraph 79 held as follows:

"79. In conclusion, we are of the view that the phrase "or other proceeding" in section 267 of the said Code would also include the concept of investigation."

The provision of Section 267 of Cr.P.C. relating to production warrant in course of investigation has also been referred to while deciding criminal appeals by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Jalees Ansari and Ors. Vs. CBI reported in (2016) 11 SCC 544; in paragraph 68 and 69 of the said judgment it is reflected that the designated Court issued production warrant and after production of the accused before the designated Court from the Court having custody, the investigating agency prayed for police custody in the designated Court. Thus, the concept of issuing production warrant at the time of investigation is no more an issue to be decided.

Having regard to such contention of the Enforcement Directorate who till date has not pursued the remedy, and are yet to decide as to whether their prayer was under

Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Learned Vacation Judge, Paschim Bardhaman , I am of the opinion that the Court at Paschim Bardhaman did not have the power to adjudicate the issue of Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the application so filed before the said Court, as the production warrant was to be issued by the Court at Delhi which is in seisin of the merits of the case.
However, the Vacation Judge, Paschim Bardhaman had the power to decide on the issue of transit remand under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The provisions of the Code are not just printed words but there must be flesh and blood attached to the interpretation of the provisions, whether the provisions of Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be applied or Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked is in respect of the same person who is to be sent to the Court at Delhi. The two Courts are different one at Delhi which is in seisin of the PMLA matter while the CBI Court is at Asansol within the domain of Calcutta High Court. It would have been easier to decide the issue in case the Enforcement Directorate decided that they would not pursue their remedy under Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi (as it has been submitted that the legality of the production warrant which was refused by the Special Court at Delhi would be challenged).