The Delhi High Court has stayed the proceedings initiated against Hero Motocorp Chairman Pawan Kant Munjal by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) on the grounds that the summoning order passed by the trial court did not give any reasons. 

The single-judge Bench of Saurabh Banerjee observed that the summoning order by the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) at the Patiala House Courts was passed without giving any reasons.

It further noted that the fact that Munjal was exonerated by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) was not disclosed to the trial court.

The High Court observed that the petitioner had made out a case for grant of interim protection and stayed the July 1, 2023 order passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – 01, Patiala House Courts.

It directed to stay all proceedings against the petitioner till the next date of hearing.

As per media reports, DRI had filed a prosecution complaint last year against Munjal, one third party service provider company named SEMPL and three individuals – Hemant Dahiya, Amit Bali and K.R. Raman, along with others, alleging that they were involved in ‘illegal’ exporting of foreign currency.

The accused were booked under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) read with 135(1)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Based on the DRI’s case, the Enforcement Directorate also booked Munjal and others under various provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

The counsel representing Munjal apprised the High Court that the trial court passed the summoning order in a mechanical manner without appreciating the fact that DRI concealed the CESTAT verdict, whereby Munjal was exonerated. It added that same set of facts formed the part of the present complaint.

Senior Standing Counsel Satish Aggarwala, appearing for DRI, apprised the High Court that it was not a party to the proceedings before the CESTAT and, therefore, there was no occasion for it to be aware of the same.

However, the High Court held that the matter required consideration and passed an interim order staying the proceedings.

Munjal was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sandeep Sethi and Dayan Krishnan, along with Advocates Rishi Aggarwal, Parminder Singh, Abhay Agnihotri, Vikram Choudhary, Ankit and S Seth.

Advocate Gagan Vaswant also appeared for DRI.

The Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to an accused in a narcotics case and observed that a large number of tablets seized by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) admittedly contain herbs or medicines meant to enhance male potency and they don’t attract the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

A bench, headed by Chief Justice N.V. Ramana and comprising Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli, quashed the Madras High Court order which had canceled the bail granted to an accused Bharat Chaudhary (accused),  in an alleged narcotics case.

The case set up by the prosecution is that on specific information received by the DRI, Chennai Zonal had seized about 1,37,665 tablets of different types collectively weighing 90 kg (approx.) described as psychotropic substances. Vide order dated November 2, 2020, the Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases, Chennai granted bail to Bharat Chaudhary. On the DRI challenging the order before the High Court of Madras, the bail order granted in favour of Bharat Chaudhary has been canceled by the Single Judge.

The High Court opined that the test reports did not totally negate the fact that the seized contraband goods were not narcotic substances. Much emphasis was laid on the total quantity of the contraband seized and it was held that once the test reports showed that some of the tablets contained narcotic substances, it was sufficient to refuse bail. Critical of the approach of the trial Court that held that since the test reports were not filed by the prosecuting agency along with the complaint, the benefit ought to ensure in favour of Bharat Chaudhary, the High Court observed that, by the time the Special Judge, EC & NDPS Cases had pronounced the order on November 2, 2020, test reports were available and ought to have been taken into consideration. The accused then approached the Top Court.

Senior Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan, appearing for the accused in the Supreme Court, assailed the High Court order contending that there was no good reason for the High Court to have canceled the bail granted to the accused by the Special Judge, EC & NDPS cases. He submitted that a grave error has been committed by the High Court by completely overlooking the fact that not a single tablet was recovered from the possession of the accused. The tablets were seized from the premises and some of the extracted samples sent for testing showed that a large number of the seized pills were sex enhancement drugs and not contraband; the seized contraband had not been produced or sampled before the Magistrate .

Also Read: Allahabad High Court directs action against officers for falsely booking a man under NDPS Act

Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, appearing for DRI, supported the HC judgment and argued that Bharat Chaudhary is the mastermind behind the entire criminal conspiracy. She alluded to the 71 samples sent for testing and the test report of CRCL, Chennai dated December 18, 2019 confirming the presence of narcotic substances along with male potency increment drugs and strenuously argued that the nexus is not only established through the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act but also from the documents in the form of printouts of the data downloaded from the mobile phone and laptop of Bharat Chaudhary, in particular, the WhatsApp chats and bank transactions. Submitting that since the twin tests laid down under Section 37 of the NDPS Act in respect of commercial quantity for grant of bail have not been satisfied, the impugned order does not deserve interference.

After carefully examining the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and having cursorily glanced at the records, the Supreme Court opined that order canceling the bail granted in favour of Bharat Chaudhary is not sustainable in view of the fact that the records sought to be relied upon by the prosecution show that one test report dated December 6, 2019, two test reports dated December 17, 2019 and one test report dated December 21, 2019 in respect of the sample pills/tablets drawn and sent for testing by the prosecuting agency conclude with a note appended by the Assistant Commercial Examiner at the foot of the reports stating that “quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities”.

In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act, the Bench held.

Also Read: Street children: Supreme Court expresses concern at low numbers in data collected for rehabilitation of children

Further,the Court added that a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act. Most importantly, none of the tablets were seized by the prosecution during the course of the search conducted, either at the office or at the residence of Bharat Chaudhary at Jaipur, on March 16, 2020. Reliance on printouts of WhatsApp messages downloaded from the mobile phone and devices seized from the office premises of Bharat Chaudhary cannot be treated at this stage as sufficient material to establish a live link between him and other accused , when even as per the prosecution, scientific reports in respect of the said devices are still awaited.

In the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of the accused, the Bench opined that mere reliance on the statement made by other accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order dated July 15, 2021. “This is all the more so when such a reliance runs contrary to the ruling in Tofan Singh (supra),” the Court said while quashing the Madras High Court order and granted bail to the accused.

Also Read:

• Supreme Court refuses interim stay on suspension of 12 Maharashtra BJP MLAs
• Chardham project road widening: Supreme Court upholds govt plan
• Allahabad HC says passport application can’t be rejected due to pending state appeal in case

The DRI has approached Supreme Court Against Rahul Gupta alleged to involved in smuggling of Gold Jewelry being owner of “Its My Name Pvt. Ltd.”

The matter is listed tomorrow before Supreme Court filed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against order dated 27.07.2020 passed by Delhi High Court; wherein Mr. Rahul Gupta being accused and owner of  “Its My Name Pvt. Ltd.” engaged Senior Counsel Mr. Harish Salve to oppose the petition.

Read Also: Police Complaint Authority’s report details action taken in police power misuse

Mr. Rahul Gupta alleged to be involved in smuggling gold Jewelry with connivance with the officials of custom department. The company allegedly involved in misusing the advance authorization scheme through circular trading of gold jewelry exported under the guise of exhibition from India and subsequently re-imported the same fraudulently without paying the custom duty.

India Legal Bureau

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Mukta Gupta has taken serious note of a death case that has come before her in which a jeweller supposedly committed suicide from the top floor of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI). The dead man’s mother has claimed in her petition that the DRI officials had forcibly taken her son from his shop to the office, tortured her and had demanded Rs 1.5 crore as bribe. The man, however, died from the torture and a suicide case was created.

The DRI had, in fact, issued a press release, talking about the “suicide”.

The court on Friday (April 27) was told by Delhi standing counsel Rahul Mehra that CCTV footage from the shop from where the deceased Gaurav Gupta was taken and from the DRI office and other places had been taken and preserved.

As per Delhi Police status reports the DVR of the CCTV records has been preserved. The state said that a judicial enquiry has been instituted by Swati Gupta, Metropolitan Magistrate. The court was also informed that a medical board had been constituted (of AIIMS) and autopsy was underway.

The TV camera footage Dean Dayal Upadhyay Bhawan has already been seized.

Backgrounder

On Thursday (April 26) a PIL in the court said that the jeweller jumped to his death from the building of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), where he had gone on Wednesday in connection with an alleged gold smuggling charge. The mentioning was done on Thursday, with the listing to be made soon.

While the PIL (made by the jeweller’s mother) seeks that a post-mortem to be done by a competent team of doctors of the AIIMS, it also seeks to preserve the body of her son till pendency of the PIL.

The allegation is that the DRI officials asked for Rs 1.5 crore from the brother of the deceased Gaurav Gupta to allegedly hush up the enquiry, but he refused to pay such a huge amount.

On Thursday petitioner counsel senior advocate Kirti Utpal said that the DRI had made a defence in advance, refusing to accept that they had called Gaurav Gupta.

The counsel said the following: “They don’t know how he had jumped. We seek to preserve the dead body till post mortem. The CBI shall register an FIR in this matter.”

The bench asked: “Where is the body?”

The counsel said: “Safdarjung Hospital.”

The bench asked: “When was the press release given?”

The respondent counsel said: “This morning.”

The bench asked: “When did he jump?”

The respondents said: “At 12 noon.”

He was then taken to Safdarjung Hospital, where the body still is.

The bench ordered as follows: “The case of the petitioner is that on April 25, 2018 the office of the DRI conducted a raid on the shop of the petitioner’s son, Gaurav Gupta. After the raid they had taken him to the DRI office. The petitioner’s case is that they received a call from the DRI office asking for Rs 1.5 crore. If given, they won’t torture her son.

“Later brother of Gaurav Gupta went to the office of the DRI where he was informed that he has been shifted to a hospital on Lodhi Road. When he reached there he saw bruise marks and torture marks on his body. After some time he received a call from teh DRI but no information related to death was given. They came to know about the death through a newspaper article about a death in the DRI office under suspicious circumstances.”

The court issued notice to the DRI (respondents 1) and to respondents 2 (the state). The counsel of the petitioner has handed over the copy of the press release issued by the DRI.

The DRI has been given a day to file its status report.

The court also directed the DCP South District to get a medical board constituted at AIIMS to conduct the autopsy on the body of Gaurav Gupta. The court has also asked for the preservation of CCTV footage in the office, DRI and Shop, if available or any area near the DRI office.

—India Legal Bureau

A complicated case of the suicide jump of a Delhi-based jeweller has come to the Delhi High Court. On Thursday (April 26) a PIL in the court said that the jeweller jumped to his death from the building of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), where he had gone on Wednesday in connection with an alleged gold smuggling charge. The mentioning was done on Thursday, with the listing to be made soon.

While the PIL (made by the jeweller’s mother) seeks that a post-mortem to be done by a competent team of doctors of the AIIMS, it also seeks to preserve the body of her son till pendency of the PIL.

The allegation is that the DRI officials asked for Rs 1.5 crore from the brother of the deceased Gaurav Gupta to allegedly hush up the enquiry, but he refused to pay such a huge amount.

On Thursday petitioner counsel senior advocate Kirti Utpal said that the DRI had made a defence in advance, refusing to accept that they had called Gaurav Gupta.

The counsel said the following: “They don’t know how he had jumped. We seek to preserve the dead body till post mortem. The CBI shall register an FIR in this matter.”

The bench asked: “Where is the body?”

The counsel said: “Safdarjung Hospital.”

The bench asked: “When was the press release given?”

The respondent counsel said: “This morning.”

The bench asked: “When did he jump?”

The respondents said: “At 12 noon.”

He was then taken to Safdarjung Hospital, where the body still is.

The bench ordered as follows: “The case of the petitioner is that on April 25, 2018 the office of the DRI conducted a raid on the  shop of the petitioner’s son, Gaurav Gupta. After the raid they had taken him to the DRI office. The petitioner’s case is that they received a call from the DRI office asking for Rs 1.5 crore. If given, they won’t torture her son.

“Later brother of Gaurav Gupta went to the office of the DRI where he was informed that he has been shifted to a hospital on Lodhi Road. When he reached there he saw bruise marks and torture marks on his body. After some time he received a call from the DRI but no information related to death was given. They came to know about the death through a newspaper article about a death in the DRI office under suspicious circumstances.”

The court issued notice to the DRI (respondents 1) and to respondents 2 (the state). The counsel of the petitioner has handed over the copy of the press release issued by the DRI.

The DRI has been given a day to file its status report.

The court also directed the DCP South District to get a medical board constituted at AIIMS to conduct the autopsy on the body of Gaurav Gupta. The court has also asked for the preservation of CCTV footage in the office, DRI and Shop, if available or any area near the DRI office.

—India Legal Bureau