N. SASIKALA Vs. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was arrested on 20.6.1996 and remanded to judicial custody in R.R. No. 76/96. She was granted compulsive bail under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure on 19.8.1996 and on the same day an application for modification was moved before this Court. It was heard on 21.8.1996 and order was passed on 22.8.1996. She was also granted bail in summons case, which was initiated for non -compliance of the summons to appear before the authority. On 21.8.1996 an application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Madras, was filed seeking permission to interrogate her and permission was granted ex parte and after interrogating between 2 P.M. and 2.20 P.M. on the same day permission was sought to serve arrest memo on the Petitioner and memo was given on 9.20 P.M. She was produced on 22.8.1996 before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and remanded to custody in R.R. No. 9/96. Bail application in MP. No. 311 of 1996 was moved before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.I), Egmore, Madras and it was dismissed. Hence this petition seeking bail inter alia contending that i) account in Cheyyar Branch and transaction pertaining to Indian Bank, Abiramapuram Branch form part of the same transaction and therefore, the repeated arrest is invalid; ii)the information and investigation concerned in respect of Cheyyar Branch started even in February 1996 and if for any reason, if investigation is not completed within 60 days from the date of original arrest, the bar under Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure applies and the Petitioner is entitled for bail; and iii) a great judicial impropriety has occurred in not apprising this Court on 19.8.1996 and subsequently. Instead, the Respondent has filed a counter on 18.8.1996 stipulating the conditions on which bail may be granted.

(2.) THE learned Counsel relied on a decision in C.B.I., Special Investigation Cell -I, New Delhi v. Anupam J. Kulkarni : A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1768 in support of his contention that if there is knowledge about a distinct offence from the date of knowledge Police may make a formal arrest, but cannot keep aside one transaction and arrest later. That amounts to violation of Section 167(2) Code of Criminal Procedure. He also relied on a decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Ganeswara Rao : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1850 in support of his contention, what constitutes same transaction and urged the unity of purpose, source, design, continuity of action, etc. being the same; it connotes to "same transaction". Among all the circumstances, unity of purpose and design are the strong circumstances to show whether it constitutes same transaction. He urged, in the instant case, the source is common, proximity of time and unity of purpose being common and in support of the said contention he relied on decisions in Aftab Ahmed v. Hakim Mohamad Yarkhan : A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 436, Banwari Lal Jhunjhunwala v. Union of India : A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1620 and P.V. Vijayaraghavan v. C.B.I., 1984 CRl. L.J. 1277. In : AIR 1963 S.C. 1850 at para 27 the Apex Court has held:

(3.) THE contention of the Petitioner in the bail application filed by her before the Sessions Court at Madras, is that the detention of the Petitioner has to be considered only in respect of the two violations mentioned in the arrest memo and further particulars gathered during investigation cannot be considered. In the arrest memo it is stated that the Enforcement Officers have reason to believe that the Petitioner has contravened the provisions of Sections 8(1), 9(1)(c) read with Section 68(2) of the FERA to the extent of U.S. $ 6,80,000/ - and Section 9(1)(a) read with Section 68(2) of the FERA to the extent of U.S. $ 1,36,000/ -. These are the two transactions shown in the arrest memo dt. 20.6.1996. In the bail petition filed before this Court in R.R. No. 76/96 at para 4 it is stated that the arrest memo given to the Petitioner mentions about these two factors only.