MOHAMMAD MUSLIM Vs. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Mohd. Muslim and Jaswinder Singh have filed these petitions seeking bail in a complaint case filed by Chief Enforcement Officer under Section 56 of The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (in short FERA) for violation of Sections 9(1)(b) and 9(1)(d) read with Section 64(2) of FERA. They have allegedly received/paid huge amounts to and from various persons on instruction from some Pakistani National having links with 'Hijbul-Mujahidin' a terrorist outfit. Circumstances leading to their arrest are as under-

(2.) On 17.8.98 at about 8.30 p.m. Four persons namely Mustaq Ahmed Bhatt, Mustaq Ahmed Gilker @ Haider Ali, Fayeez Ahmed Padder @ Tahir and Sohail Adrish were arrested when they were found in truck No. JK-03-1298 near plot 504/1, Durga Vihar, Davli Extension, New Delhi. Some arms and ammunitions was recovered from them. Besides a sum of Rs. 47.50,000/- was recovered from the cavities of the truck. The aforesaid four persons in their disclosure statements indicated the involvement of Mohd. Muslim @ Billu in money laundering for carrying out terrorist activities in India. Mohd. Muslim was arrested on 27.8.98 from shop No. 31, Meena Bazar, Jama Masjid, Delhi. His disclosure statement made on 28.8.98 led to the arrest of other petitioner Jaswinder Singh on 31.08.98. Pocket diaries were recovered from both the petitioners at the time of the arrest. These diaries contain some telephone numbers and some figures indicating the receipt and transfer of huge amount. The aforesaid four persons who were arrested from a truck and the two petitioners were challaned under Sections 121, 121 A, 122, 123, 120B, IPC. The said four persons were also challaned under Section 25 of Arms Act and Sections 4 & 5 of Explosive Substance Act. After considering the evidencery value of the entries contained in the diaries allegedly recovered from the petitioners as also the genuineness and admissibility of the disclosure state- ments made by the co-accused persons, learned Additional Sessions Judge vide detailed order dated 20.9.99 discharged the two petitioners herein as he found no incriminating material, legally admissible in evidence to connect the two petitioners with the alleged offence under Sections 121,121 A, 122,123,120B, IPC. The petitioners have remained in custody in the said case for about 13 months. The disclosure statements of the petitioners indicating their involvement in the above transaction were recorded in September, 1998 but the Enforcement Directorate filed the present complaint under Section 56 of FERA only in January 2002. On processes being served, the petitioner Mohd. Muslim appeared and was taken into custody on 10.5.2002 whereas the other petitioner Jasvinder Singh was taken into custody on 19.7.2002. Their bail application were also rejected by learned ACMM vide order dated 10.5.2002 and 19.7.2002 respectively. Hence, these petitions

(3.) During the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised several issues of facts and law. It was contended that alleged disclosure statements of petitioners were obtained when they were in custody and interpolation of serious nature have been made therein by making over writing. It was further contended that learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 20.9.99 has discharged the two petitioners of offences under Sections 121,121 A, 122,123,120B, IPC on the same allegation and therefore, present complaint under Section 56 of FERA is not maintainable. Besides the opportunity notice was neither dated nor signed by any person so the same is invalid. Learned counsel for the Enforcement Directorate forcefully countered these arguments and laid great emphasis on the fact that the petitioner were involved in the money laundering at huge scale to promote terrorist activities and therefore they should not be granted facility of bail.