- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tar Balbir Singh v. Union Of India
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Chandigarh, was summoned by respondent authorities to appear in Bombay to give evidence and produce documents related to the recovery of 324 gold bars seized from a Maruti Van. The petitioner contended that the summons were vague, provided no list of required documents, and did not explain the connection of his testimony to the enquiry. He claimed no involvement in the case and cited serious health issues preventing travel to Bombay. The petitioner expressed willingness to cooperate and requested that his statement be recorded in Chandigarh with the assistance of an advocate, but this request was denied.
Previously, the petitioner had been illegally detained by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers, subjected to torture, and detained under the COFEPOSA Act. His detention was quashed by a habeas corpus petition, and a complaint regarding torture was dismissed. The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous petition under section 482, Cr.P.C. to set aside those orders, which remains pending. He alleged mala fide intentions behind the summons, fearing false implication linked to prior cases involving co-accused.
The respondents opposed the petition, asserting that the matter was under investigation in Bombay, that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and that the petitioner had been named in voluntary statements as involved in smuggling. They denied the petitioner’s ailments and the right to legal representation during statement recording. They also denied allegations of torture and stated that the DRI had no office in Chandigarh, making it impractical to record the statement there.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Court has jurisdiction to direct recording of the petitioner’s statement at Chandigarh or a place other than Bombay where the investigation is pending.
- Whether the petitioner’s health and circumstances justify exemption from personal appearance in Bombay for recording his statement.
- Whether the petitioner has the right to be assisted by an advocate during the recording of his statement.
- Whether the summons issued to the petitioner are mala fide and amount to harassment.
- Whether the respondent authorities are obliged to bear the petitioner’s travel and stay expenses for appearing in connection with the enquiry.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Petitioner is a permanent resident of Chandigarh and was summoned to Bombay without clear explanation or list of documents required.
- He is not involved in the case and has no knowledge of the gold recovery matter.
- Petitioner suffers from serious health issues (Cervical Spine problems, Hypertension, Cervical Spondylosis) and cannot undertake travel to Bombay.
- He is willing to cooperate and requests recording of his statement in Chandigarh with advocate assistance.
- Previous illegal detention and torture by DRI officers, with pending proceedings challenging such detention.
- Summons are mala fide to extract a confessional statement and petitioner fears false implication.
- Requests that if arrested, he should be given 15 days’ notice.
Respondents’ Arguments
- All points raised were considered during anticipatory bail application, which was rejected.
- The enquiry is pending in Bombay and this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
- Petitioner has been named in voluntary statements as involved in smuggling.
- Petitioner was previously involved in gold smuggling, and is not suffering from any ailment.
- Petitioner has no right to be represented by an advocate during statement recording.
- DRI has no office in Chandigarh; investigation and enquiries must be carried out at the place of investigation.
- Denial of allegations regarding torture and illegal detention.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court accepted the petitioner’s medical condition and difficulty in traveling to Bombay. It noted that the petitioner is only being summoned to give a statement as a witness, not as an accused, and that if the authorities do not consider him an accused, they should bear his travel and stay expenses or provide an undertaking to that effect. The Court rejected the argument that the investigating officer’s inability to bring the entire record to Chandigarh justified summoning the petitioner to Bombay. It emphasized that summoning a citizen to a distant place for the convenience of officers, especially at the citizen’s own expense, amounts to harassment. The Court found no bar on its jurisdiction to protect a citizen from such harassment since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chandigarh. The Court also noted that the respondent’s claim that all pleas had been decided was unsupported by the record. Taking into account that the DRI has no office in Chandigarh but does have one in Jalandhar, the Court directed that the petitioner’s statement be recorded at Jalandhar with advance notice and the right to have an advocate present (without interference). Travel expenses were to be borne by the respondent authorities. The Court left open the possibility of recording the statement at Chandigarh if convenient.
Holding and Implications
The petition was disposed of with directions that the petitioner’s statement be recorded at Jalandhar (or Chandigarh if convenient), with 15 days’ advance notice, the right to legal assistance, and travel expenses borne by the respondent authorities.
The direct effect of this decision is to protect the petitioner from harassment by ensuring his medical condition and residence are taken into account in the investigation process. The Court’s order safeguards the petitioner’s rights without setting any new legal precedent beyond the facts of this case.
G.S. Chahal, J. - The petitioner has come to this Court in Criminal miscellaneous under section 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 2.7.91 with a direction that he should appear before him at his office in Bombay on 11.7.91, 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 21.8.91 at Bombay from a Maruti Van GJ-I-7504. The petitioner sent his reply vide Annexure P2 but he received further summons dated 9.8.91, with a direction that he should appear at Bombay on 16.8.91, 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 Cervial Spine and is suffering from Hypertension and Cervical Spondylosis 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 `the 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, revision was filed before the Addl. Sessions Judge, Chandigarh which was also dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner has filed criminal Misc. under section 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 uncles he withdraws the said petition. The petitioner apprehends false implication, since the recovery of gold bars for which he is being summoned to appeal as a witness, was allegedly made from Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh and out of the two Sukhjit 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 form Sukhjit Singh, in Maruti van GJ-I-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, along with the record. It is the place of investigation where the enquiries have to be carried out. All other allegations respecting the petitioner's having been subjected to torture etc. have been denied.
4. The fact that the petitioner is a resident of Chandigarh has not been disputed. The genuineness of Annexures P1 to P7 has also not been challenged. The averment of the petitioner that his detention has been quashed, has not been denied in the written statement.
5. Considering the medical certificates attached with the criminal miscellaneous and plea that the petitioner has been suffering from the ailments, mentioned above, as also his treatment by the doctors and that it would be difficult for him to undertake a journey to Bombay is accepted. At present, the petitioner is only being summoned to appeal before the DRI officers for making a statement with respect to the allegations made by Sukhjit Singh and Rajesh B. Parikh about the involvement of the petitioner. If the respondent authorities have not been treating the petitioner to be an accused person, they were required to arrange for the travelling expenses of the petitioner and his stay at Bombay or atleast they should have given an undertaking to that effect. It is difficult to imagine as to how the petitioner should undertake a long journey to Bombay which is for the convenience of the DRI officers and that, too, at his own expense and also to bear the expenses of his stay at such a costly city, like Bombay. The statement given in the return that the investigating officer is not supposed to take the entire record to Chandigarh, can hardly be accepted as a legal ground for the DRI officers to summon the petitioner to Bombay to make a statement. A citizen would only be put to harassment if he is being summoned to far off places, just to meet the whims of the officers of the DRI.
6. Since the petitioner is a permanent resident of Chandigarh and being summoned by the authorities from this place, only this Court can give the relief effectively. There is no bar on the jurisdiction of this Court to save a citizen from harassment.
7. The plea of the respondent authorities that all the pleas taken in the present petition had been decided by this Court in a petition under section 438 Cr.P.C. is not supported by Annexure B.
8. It is conceded by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the DRI does not have any office at Chandigarh, but has its office at Jalandhar. I hereby give a direction that the petitioner shall be examined at Jalandhar on a date to be fixed by the investigating officer, by giving an advance notice of 15 days. The petitioner shall have the right to have the assistance of an Advocate's presence at the time of recording his statement, who will, however, not interfere with the recording thereof. The respondent authorities shall also send the money to defray the travelling expenses of the petitioner to Jalandhar and back. It shall, however, also be open to them to examine him at Chandigarh if it is so convenient. With these directions, the criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of.
Misc disposed of.
Alert