VIJAY WADHWA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 19 -11 -1996, office premises of the petitioner -Vijay Wadhwa were searched by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate and Indian currency of Rs.19,46,000/ - was seized under a panchanama from the said premises. In that connection, employee of the petitioner by name Rajendra Berry came to be arrested at that time. Thereafter, in the course of enquiry, Statements of Manoj, brother of the petitioner, Fazal Mohamed, Imtiaz Tina and Abdul Razak came to be recorded and it transpired that employee of the petitioner by name Rajendra was to carry this amount to Fazal Mohamed in connection with certain Havala transactions at abroad. Apprehending arrest, petitioner filed this application for anticipatory bail, presently, petitioner is confined is Holy Family Hospital, Bandra, Bombay and is undergoing treatment there. In short, it is alleged that the petitioner has contravened provisions of FERA and committed offences under the Suit of Act.

(2.) I have heard Shri Mundargi for the petitioner and Shri Patwardhan for Respondent No.1. I have been taken through the entire record as well as affidavit filed by Shri Rajesh Bakshi, Assistant Enforcement Officer, Mittal Chamber, Mumbai, Apart from the statements of Fazal Mohd.. Abdual Razak and Imtiaz Tina, it appears that the petitioner is no where directly connection with the amount found in his office premises being towards Havala Transaction abroad. It is not disputed that the statements of the petitioner has been recorded under section 40 of FERA while petitioner was in the hospital. Shri Mundargi submitted that statement of the petitioner is exculpatory and further the petitioner has given account of the said amount of Rs.19,46,000/ - found in his office premises being received from the sale of scraps of demolished building and also for the purpose of payment to tenant for the purpose of vacating the premises. Shri Patwardhan submitted that there is no voucher and receipt in respect of the sale of the scrap and further tenant to whom the amount was to be paid has denied any such transaction. In these circumstances, petitioner has not given any proper account of the amount. It is not that the amount found with the petitioner is foreign currency. Shri Patwardhan was unable to show that petitioner was directly connected with Havala transaction to which reference was made by Fazal Mohd. in his statement. In these circumstances, I find this to be fit case to grant anticipatory bail subject to certain conditions.