The Supreme Court held the Investigation Officer and the ACJM for gross derision to the order passed by the Court granting interim protection to the petitioner.
The bench found that there is not even a whisper of an allegation against the said officer other than the aspect relating to the non-functioning of the CCTV cameras at the Vesu Police Station.
The court stated that the respondent cannot be held responsible for the noncompliance/contempt of the Court’s order.
The court said that contemnor-respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Surat, is not directly responsible for non-compliance of the Court’s order. However, his role in failing to ensure proper installation and maintenance of CCTV cameras in the police station can be made a subject matter of enquiry at a departmental level, if so desired.
It was observed by the court that the Investigating Officer, contemnor, Police Inspector acted in flagrant defiance and gross contempt of the Court’s order by applying for police custody remand of the petitioner.
The bench said that the portrayal made by the Investigating Officer in the remand application to claim that the accused-petitioner was not cooperating in the investigation was totally cooked up and a clear attempt to draw wool over the Court’s eyes.
“By failing to test the truth of the complainant’s allegations regarding transmission of huge cash amount to the tune of Rs. 1.65 crores to the accused, the Investigating Officer acted in sheer ignorance to the mandate of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as the provisions of PMLA”, the bench said.
The court held that there was not even a shred of bona fide in the actions of the Investigating Officer while seeking police custody remand of the accused on the purported ground of non-cooperation in investigation. The exercise of seeking police custody remand during currency of the interim protection granted to the petitioner was in sheer defiance of the Court’s order and tantamounts to contempt on the face of the record.
The court further held that contemnor-ACJM acted with bias and in a high-handed manner while granting police custody remand of the accused.
Facts
The petitioner, along with other co-accused, was arraigned as an accused in FIR filed by the contemnor-the complainant, with an allegation that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.1.65 crores in cash from the complainant towards the sale of 15 shops but the possession thereof was not handed over to the complainant despite the assurance given by the accused at the time of entering into an oral agreement.
The petitioner, apprehending his arrest in connection with the said FIR, sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which was denied whereafter, an application for anticipatory bail was filed before the High Court, which also came to be rejected.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing SLP seeking anticipatory bail.
The Court granted interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner appeared at Vesu Police Station with a copy of the order under contempt intending to join and cooperate with the investigation. Investigating Officer arrested the petitioner and thereafter, released him on bail upon execution of the requisite bail bonds in terms of order.
On the very same day, the petitioner was served with a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requiring him to remain present at the police station before the Investigating Officer for recording of further statements.
When the petitioner appeared at the police station, another notice was served upon him requiring him to remain present before the Court of concerned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate for the purpose of seeking remand.
In compliance with the said notice, the petitioner appeared before 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat on which date, the Investigating Officer, filed an application seeking his police custody remand for seven days.
When the remand application was taken up, counsel representing the petitioner produced a copy of the order under contempt and made a fervent submission that the Supreme Court, while providing interim protection to the petitioner had not granted any liberty to the Investigating Officer to seek police custody remand and thus, the application seeking remand ought to be rejected.
However, the 6th ACJM, in gross derision to the order passed by the Court granting interim protection to the petitioner, observed that the order of Supreme Court did not indicate that the Investigating Officer could not seek remand of the accused or that the Court cannot grant remand and accordingly, she proceeded to remand the petitioner to police custody.
Case Information
Case Name: Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah V/S Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Judicial Level & Location : Supreme Court
Case Number : Contempt Petition(Civil) (D. No. 1106 Of 2024) In Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No(S). 14489 Of 2023
Date of Decision : 07/08/2024
Decision in favor of: Petitioner
Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai And Justice Sandeep Mehta
