SURENDRA PAL AGGARWAL Vs. ASSISTANT ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Ms.Anjana Gupta for the petitioner, Mr.M.K.Patwardhan for Respondent No.1 and Mr.V.T.Tulpule, PP for Respondent No.2.

(2.) THIS is an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The Enforcement Officer from the Directorate of Enforcement had arrested four persons on the basis of certain information about over-invoicing the price of export of Potassium Citrate. Pursuant to the said information the four persons were arrested on 11th July 1996 and their remand was sought for under Remand Application No.134 of 1996 from the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Esplanade, Bombay. The said remand application is dated 13th July 1996. The said four accused were arrested for the violation of Section 9 read with Section 56 of the FERA Act. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by his order of 16th July 1996, released all those four accused on bail in the sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 each with one solvent surety or cash bail deposit of Rs.2,00,000.00 in lieu of surety with certain conditions.

(3.) PURSUANT to the said disclosure made in the statement of accused No.2, the petitioner was served with summons dated 19th July 1996. On 19th July 1996 the premises of the petitioner were searched by the office of the Enforcement Directorate and certain documents were seized which according to the prosecution are incriminating documents. The said documents seems to be six in number from the panchanama and the list is annexed to this petition. They are Purchase Order, Advance Licence, application for issue of licence etc. I do not think that these documents are incriminatory but in any event party has been already interrogated in respect thereof. The petitioner had given his reply dated 26th July 1996 which is annexed to this petition in which he was a party. Along with the said letter he also had produced before the authorities two documents one being letter dated 29th May 1995 which was addressed to the company of which the petitioner was the Director by the importer referring to the Export Order dated 17/11/1994 appreciating the quality of the exports of Potassium Citrate Analytical Grade which was received by him which in turn was re-exported by him to a buyer in Africa who was very much satisfied about the quality of the said goods. The quantity that was supplied under that export was 300 Kilos. The another document which was produced was the certificate issued by the Dubai Chamber of Commerce certifying the correct valuation of the said goods. The department can independently verify the truthfulness of the said documents. Despite this Department wanted to arrest the petitioner.