TAR BALBIR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come to this Court in Criminal miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for the issuance of an order to the respondent-authorities to record his statement at Chandigarh.

(2.) According to the petitioner, he is a permanent resident of house No. 130, Sector 9B, Chandigarh. He had received summons from respondent-2, bearing the date of 2/7/1991 with a direction that he should appear before him at his office in Bombay on 11/7/1991, as he is so required to give evidence and produce the documents in respect of the enquiry being made by him about the recovery of 324 gold bars (each of 10 Tolas on 21/8/1991 at Bombay from a MARUTI VANGJ1 7504.) Toe petitioner sent his reply vide Annexure n, but he received further summons dated 9.8.1991, with a direction that he should appear at Bombay on 16/8/1991, in connection with the same enquiry. The petitioner has not been informed as to in what connection and for what evidence his presence is wanted and also no list of documents has been sent regarding which he is required to join the investigation. The summons are, thus, vague. The petitioner is neither directly nor indirectly involved in any case and he has no knowledge about the recovery of the alleged gold. He is a patient of Cervical Spine and is suffering from Hypertension and Cervical Spondy-losis and he has remained under the treatment of Dr. Vinod Sethi of PGI, Chandigarh. He is, thus, not in a position to undertake a long journey to Bombay. He had shown his willingness to join the investigation and co-operate with the Department. His further submission is that his statement be recorded at Chandigarh and he may be allowed to have the assistance of an Advocate at the time of recording of the statement. However, his request for recording of the statement at Chandigarh has been declined. Previously, the petitioner had been illegally-and wrongfully detained by the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (briefly the DRI), Zonal Unit, Bombay and then removed to Delhi. During his illegal custody, he was manhandled and severely beaten and subjected to torture and subsequently detained under the provisions of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (in brief Tthe COFEPOSA Act). A habeas corpus filed was successful and his detention was quashed. A complaint with respect to torture meted out to him was also filed, but the same was dismissed. Against the order of dismissal, a revision was filed before the Add!. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh which was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner has filed Criminal Misc. u/s 482, Cr. P.C. for setting aside the orders which is still pending in this Court. The officers of the DRI are threatening to involve him in some other case unless he withdraws the said petition. The petitioner apprehends false implication, since the recovery of gold bars for which he is being summoned to appear as a witness, was allegedly made from Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh and out of the two Sukhjil Singh was a co-accused of the petitioner in the previous proceedings. The summons have been issued mala fide and he is being summoned to extract a confessional statement from him. He also submits that direction be given to the respondent authorities, that in case he is to be arrested in this case or in any other case, a 15-day notice be given to him.

(3.) In the return filed, the respondents have averred that all the points had been taken at the time of application for anticipatory bail moved by the petitioner and the same had been rejected vide a speaking order by this Court. The present criminal miscellaneous is not maintainable. The enquiry proceedings are pending at Bombay in connection with recovery and seizure of 324 foreign marked gold biscuits recovered from Sukhjit Singh, in MARUTI Van GJ-1-7504 and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In the voluntary statements tendered by Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh, the petitioner has been named as a person involved in the smuggling of gold. Previously, the petitioner had also been involved in a case of smuggling of gold wherein 772 gold biscuits had been recovered. The petitioner was not suffering from any ailment and he has no right to be represented by an Advocate. The DRI has no office at Chandigarh and the officers cannot come to Chandigarh, alongwith the record. It is the place of investigation where the enquiries have to be carried out. All other allegations respecting the petitioners having been subject to torture etc. have been denied.