NAGOOR MEERA Vs. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner seeks issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records culminating in proceedings No. 13/316/sz/90 dated 10 -10 -1990, on the file of the 2nd Respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the second Respondent to return his (Petitioner's ) travel documents such as his return air ticket (Air India), identity card and driving licence issued by the Malaysian authorities and Indian Passport.

(2.) BEFORE narrating the facts leading to the filing of this writ petition, we want to make the following observation:

(3.) ON 22 -8 -1990, he caused a lawyer's notice to be issued on his behalf to the 2nd Respondent requesting him to return his travel documents seized on 21 -8 -1990. A copy of that letter was also sent to the 1st Respondent. Another lawyer's notice was issued on 28 -8 -1990 reiterating the same and informing the authorities that the Petitioner intends to leave for Kuala Lampur in two weeks time. In the meanwhile, a second summons dated 27 -8 -1990 was issued to the Petitioner, directing him to appear before the second Respondent along with documents mentioned in schedule, on 10 -9 -1990. It may be noted that the schedule was left blank without mentioning the description of any document. Finding that no reply was forthcoming from the Respondents, the Petitioner's counsel sent another letter on 30 -8 -1990 enclosing a vakalath and inviting the attention of the officers to his earlier letters. To this, a reply was sent by the second Respondent by his letter dated 31 -8 -1990 that inasmuch as the Petitioner was summoned under Section 40 of the Act, his vakalath cannot be accepted, and the counsel was requested to advise his client to appear in response to the summons already issued. The Petitioner appeared before the second Respondent on 10 -8 -1990 pursuant to the summons. It is stated in the affidavit that his advocate took him to the Enforcement Directorate on 10 -8 -1990 at about 11.30 A.M. and he was detained there from 11.30 A.M. on 10 -8 -1990 to 1.15 P.M. on 11 -8 -1990. During that period, namely, 25 hours and 45 minutes, he was repeatedly interrogated to admit that he had received Rs. 4 lakhs and that should give a statement like that. According to the Petitioner for getting such a statement, he was harassed, humiliated and the officers of the Enforcement Directorate used abusive language without allowing the Petitioner to have his food. A statement was recorded at about 3.00 P.M. on 10 -8 -1990 as per the dictation of the Enforcement Officer and another statement was recorded on the next day before he was allowed to leave the office. When he demanded the release of his travel documents, the second Respondent, it is alleged, scored out the earlier statement and prepared another statement as if the travel documents were left by the Petitioner and he was asked to collect the same on 13 -9 -1990. As the Respondent have neither admitted the seizure of documents mentioned in the lawyer's notice dated 22 -8 -1990 nor denied the same, the Petitioner's counsel wrote a detailed letter on 11 -9 -1990 to the first Respondent narrating what all happened till that date, including the Petitioner's detention, and requested him to give appropriate direction to the concerned officer to return the travel documents immediately. The Petitioner states that he was running only a small tea -stall in Kuala Lampur and he cannot remit the huge amount as assumed by the officers. Another summons was issued directing the Petitioner to appear on 3 -10 -1990 which was served on him on the very same date, and since it happened to be a public holiday, he did not answer the summons. A fourth summons was issued to appear on 19 -10 -1990 to which the Petitioner sent a reply through his counsel on 15 -10 -1990. In spite of several letters by the Petitioner's counsel, only on 10 -10 -1990, the second Respondent sent an evasive reply stating as follows.