SPONGE UDYOG PRIVATE LTD. v. The Union of India

Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.

3. The Joint Director of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.

4. The Assistant Director of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.

5. The Superintendent of Central Excise Intelligence Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur.

6. The Inspector, DGCEI, Jamshedpur Regional Unit, First Floor, New Kalimatti Road, Sakchi, Jamshedpur. ----------- For the Respondents :- Mrs. Archana Meenakshee, Sr.S.C. & For the Petitioner :- Mr. Suraj Samdarshi, Advocae. Mrs. Archana Sinha, Jr.S.C. -------- 3 25/08/2009 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) (ii) summons dated For quashing of 09.04.2009 illegally issued to the employee of the petitioner whereby and whereunder the respondents are forcing to appear and give statements on their dictates without any jurisdiction and any search warrant in the name of the petitioner. For quashing of the letter dated 29.04.2009 along with summons dated illegal 29.04.2009 enclosed therewith issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby and whereunder the respondent authorities without any jurisdiction and without any search warrant recorded - 2 - (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) statement of one of the employees of the petitioner Company and has further summoned the said employee to appear before the said authority. For a direction to the respondent authorities to provide Xerox copies of statement of employee which was taken under coercion and duress by the respondent authorities in course of search and seizure date 25.03.2009. For a declaration that the respondent had no authority in law to search the registered office of the petitioner in absence of any search authorization in the name of the petitioner. For a declaration that the respondents had no jurisdiction over the registered office of the petitioner and the perverse action taken by the is wholly without respondent authorities jurisdiction in as much as they cannot assume authorization on themselves to search every thing in the premises of Bhartiya Palace, Bander Bagicha, Patna whether they are of having authorization to search and seize or not in the name of petitioner Company. For a declaration that anything required to be asked from the employee summoned be asked from the petitioner company through letter after providing the Xerox copy of statement taken from the said employee. For a declaration that the summons cannot be issued to a person for re-statement who had already given statement on the date of the entire inspection particularly wherein records are with the Department and there is no search warrant against the Company, of which the person is an employee. For a declaration that the respondent had no jurisdiction over the petitioner’s premises to conduct the search. For a declaration that denial to provide copy of the statement of persons to the petitioner company recorded on the date of inspection is violative of principles of law; and for any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner may be found entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.” In the present writ application the basic contention is that the seizure was without jurisdiction since the Enforcement agency did - 3 - not have a search warrant against the Company and the authorities concerned had no jurisdiction to summon any of the employees of the petitioner Company for the purpose of interrogation. The petitioner apprehends that whenever any person goes to the department, he is forced to write as per the dictates of the departmental authorities. Such allegations are denied in the counter affidavit. To refute the contention of the petitioner Respondents did not have a search warrant with regard to the petitioner, the department in its counter affidavit has stated in paragraph 11(iv) as follows : “No room was found earmarked for registered office of the petitioner company in the searched office premises and therefore, it is factually no correct that the registered office of the petitioner company was also searched by DGCEI. It is true that some documents of the petitioner Company were found in the same hall in which documents of M/S. Dina Metals Ltd. and M/S. Dayal Steel Ltd were kept. It is also true that the said documents of the petitioner company were also examined during search of said common hall and some of them which were considered relevant for investigation were seized by DGCEI. Thus, the DGCEI has acted within its jurisdiction and authority and no illegality is involved in the above action of the DGCEI as the said seized documents of the petitioner company are duly reflected in the concerned search/seizure list.” From the aforesaid averment in the counter affidavit it, prima facie, appears that some of the documents pertaining to the petitioner were seized while the Officer had seized the documents relating to other Companies i.e. Dina Metals Ltd. and Dina Mahabir Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. and, therefore, the contention that the premises of the petitioner were searched without search warrant is not acceptable. Moreover, we have already disposed of the connected writ petitions - 4 - bearing C.W.J.C. Nos. 5902 of 2009 and 6673 of 2009 holding that it would not be proper for us to go into that aspect of the matter at this stage. The next contention that the summoning of the petitioner’s employees for purposes of interrogation by the respondents was without jurisdiction, meaningless and superfluous cannot also be accepted for the plain reason that it is an established principle of law that the Courts should not interfere with investigation. We also do not think it possible to conclude that in every case the department uses coercion for obtaining written statement. It would be premature for us to go into that aspect and it would be open to the petitioner to raise such question as and when such occasion arises. Therefore, we dispose of this writ petition with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to raise all the questions before an appropriate authority at the appropriate stage. It goes without saying that if any such question is raised, the concerned authority will decide the said question in accordance with law. (P. K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)