Tar Balbir Singh vs Union of India and anr.

G.S. Chahal, J.

The petitioner has come to this Court in Criminal miscellaneous under section 482, Cr.P.C. for the issuance of an order to the respondent authorities to record his statement at Chandigarh.

According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of house No. 130, Sector 9B, Chandigarh. He had received summons from respondent2, bearing the date of 2.7.91 with a direction that he should appear before him at his office in Bombay on 11.7.91, as he is so required to give evidence and produce the documents in respect of the enquiry being made by him about the recovery of 324 gold bars (each of 10 Tolas, on 21.8.91 at Bombay from a Maruti Van GJI7504. The petitioner sent his reply vide Annexure P2 but he received further summons dated 9.8.91, with a direction that he should appear at Bombay on 16.8.91, in connection with the same enquiry. The petitioner has not been informed as to in what connection and for what evidence his presence is wanted and also no list of documents has been sent regarding which he is required to join the investigation. The summons, are thus vague. The petitioner is neither directly nor indirectly involved in any case and he has no knowledge about the recovery of the alleged gold. He is a patient of Cervial Spine and is suffering from Hypertension and Cervical Spondylosis and he has remained under the treatment of Dr. Vinod Sethi of PGI, Chandigarh. He is, thus, not in a position to undertake a long journey to Bombay. He had shown his willingness to join the investigation and cooperate with the Department. His further submission is that his statement be recorded at Chandigarh and he may be allowed to have the assistance of an Advocate at the time of recording of the statement. However, his request for recording of the statement at Chandigarh has been declined. Previously, the petitioner had been illegally and wrongfully detained by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (briefly `the DRI''), Zonal Unit, Bombay and then removed to Delhi. During his illegal custody, he was manhandled and severely beaten and subjected to torture and subsequently detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in brief `the COFEPOSA Act''). A habeas corpus filed was successful and his detention was quashed. A complaint with respect to torture meted out to him was also filed, but the same was dismissed. Against the order of dismissal, revision was filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh which was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner has filed criminal Misc. under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders which is still pending in this Court. The officers of the DRI are threatening to involve him in some other case uncles he withdraws the said petition. The petitioner apprehends false implication, since the recovery of gold bars for which he is being summoned to appeal as a witness, was allegedly made from Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh and out of the two Sukhjit Singh was a co accused of the petitioner in the previous proceedings. The summons have been issued mala fide and he is being summoned to extract a confessional statement from him. He also submits that direction be given to the respondent authorities, that in case he is to be arrested in this case or in any other case, a 15day notice be given to him.

In the return filed, the respondents have averred that all the points had been taken at the time of application for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner and the same had been rejected vide a speaking order by this Court. The present criminal miscellaneous is not maintainable. The enquiry proceedings are pending at Bombay in connection with recovery and seizure of 324 foreign marked gold biscuits recovered form Sukhjit Singh, in Maruti van GJI7504 and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In the voluntary statements tendered by Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh, the petitioner has been named as a person involved in the smuggling of gold. Previously the petitioner had also been involved in a case of smuggling of gold wherein 772 gold biscuits had been recovered. The petitioner was not suffering from any ailment and he has no right to be represented by an Advocate. The DRI has no office at Chandigarh and the officers cannot come to Chandigarh, along with the record. It is the place of investigation where the enquiries have to be carried out. All other allegations respecting the petitioner''s having been subjected to torture etc. have been denied.

The fact that the petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh has not been disputed. The genuineness of Annexures P1 to P7 has also not been challenged. The averment of the petitioner that his detention has been quashed, has not been denied in the written statement.

Considering the medical certificates attached with the criminal miscellaneous and plea that the petitioner has been suffering from the ailments, mentioned above, as also his treatment by the doctors and that it would be difficult for him to undertake a journey to Bombay is accepted. At present, the petitioner is only being summoned to appeal before the DRI officers for making a statement with respect to the allegations made by Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh about the involvement of the petitioner. If the respondent authorities have not been treating the petitioner to be an accused person, they were required to arrange for the travelling expenses of the petitioner and his stay at Bombay or atleast they should have given an undertaking to that effect. It is difficult to imagine as to how the petitioner should undertake a long journey to Bombay which is for the convenience of the DRI officers and that, too, at his own expense and also to bear the expenses of his stay at such a costly city, like Bombay. The statement given in the return that the investigating officer is not supposed to take the entire record to Chandigarh, can hardly be accepted as a legal ground for the DRI officers to summon the petitioner to Bombay to make a statement. A citizen would only be put to harassment if he is being summoned to far off places, just to meet the whims of the officers of the DRI.

Since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chandigarh and being summoned by the authorities from this place, only this Court can give the relief effectively. There is no bar on the jurisdiction of this Court to save a citizen from harassment.

The plea of the respondent authorities that all the pleas taken in the present petition had been decided by this Court in a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is not supported by Annexure B.

It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DRI does not have any office at Chandigarh, but has its office at Jalandhar. I hereby give a direction that the petitioner shall be examined at Jalandhar on a date to be fixed by the investigating officer, by giving an advance notice of 15 days. The petitioner shall have the right to have the assistance of an Advocate''s presence at the time of recording his statement, who will, however, not interfere with the recording thereof. The respondent authorities shall also send the money to defray the travelling expenses of the petitioner to Jalandhar and back. It shall, however, also be open to them to examine him at Chandigarh if it is so convenient. With these directions, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.

Misc disposed of.