YUSUF RAZAK DHANANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Gawankar submitted that the applicant No. 1 is absconding. He was doing business in Bombay and thereafter he had gone to London on 13th October, 2001 and did the business there and at present he has come to Dubai and is likely to come to Bombay. He further submitted that on 21st of September, 2001 his statement has been recorded by the DRI office and, therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that applicant No. 1 was absconding. He submitted that the applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigating agency. He further submitted that applicant No. 1's wife and son are also apprehending that they would be arrested for the purpose of investigation in respect of the offence which has been alleged against applicant No. 1 - Yusuf Dhanani. He further submitted that the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of the firm who are alleged to have been involved in alleged fraud committed by applicant No. 1.

(2.) SHRI Mehta submitted that applicant No. 1 has masterminded the entire fraud. He submitted that he is the mastermind behind the activities which are alleged to be fraudulent. He further submitted that after obtaining the high quality chemicals applicant No. 1 used to change it and make it low grade chemicals and used to export it. Shri Mehta further submitted that such chemical is less priced and therefore by doing all these activities applicant No. 1 has earned wrongful gain of amount which goes to one crore forty lacs. He further submitted that the attempts were made by the Department to serve the notices on him but as he was not available, the notices could not be served on him but they were served on his family members. Shri Mehta submitted that custodial interrogation is very much necessary in this case because he is to be taken to various places where the Investigation Officer would be getting the information.

(3.) SHRI Mehta placed reliance on the judgment of the Single Judge Bench of this Court in the matter of Harshad Mehta v. Union of India and anr. reported in 1982 Cr. L. J. 4032 wherein it has been held by the Single Bench of this Court that when investigation is to be done in respect of the bank scam, the accused should be in custody in public interest. It has been also held by the Single Bench of this Court that in the public interest Enforcement Directorate ought to be given full and proper opportunity to effectively investigate into the FERA offences.