P. CHIDAMBARAM versus DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 172 · Decided: 05-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · cites 18 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
172
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
P. CHIDAMBARAM
v.
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT
(Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2019)
SEPTEMBER 05, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3 and 4 –
Production of Documents in a sealed cover for custodial
interrogation – Prosecution alleged irregularities in Foreign
Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to a company
for receiving foreign investment to the tune of Rs.305 crores against
approved inflow of Rs.4.62 crores – Appellant was the then finance
minister – CBI registered FIR against the appellant and other
accused persons u/s.120 IPC r/w. s.420 IPC, s.8 and s.13(2) r/w.
s.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Enforcement
Directorate also registered a case u/ss.3 and 4 of PMLA against the
accused persons – High Court dismissed the application for the
grant of anticipatory bail filed by the appellant and held it to be a
classic case of money-laundering – On appeal, before the Supreme
Court, respondent sought to produce the materials so collected in a
sealed cover and requested the Court to peruse the documents and
materials to satisfy the conscience of the Court as to the necessity
for the custodial interrogation – Respondent contended that the
materials so collected cannot be shared with appellant at the initial
stage when the Court was considering the matter for grant of pre-
arrest bail – Appellant contended that respondent cannot rely upon
the documents without furnishing those documents to the appellant
or without questioning the appellant about the materials – Held:
The Court can receive the materials/documents collected during the
investigation and peruse the same to satisfy its conscience that the
investigation is proceeding in the right lines and for the purpose of
consideration of grant of bail/anticipatory bail etc. - In the instant
case, sealed cover was received by the Court, however, the Court
refrained from opening the sealed cover and perusing the documents
because if Court had made observations after perusal of the
materials, it might have caused prejudice to the appellant and other
 [2019] 12 S.C.R. 172
172
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
173
co-accused who were not before the Court – Suffice to note that it
was the stage of considering the pre-arrest bail – In the initial stages
of investigation where the Court is considering the question of grant
of regular bail or pre-arrest bail, it is not for the Court to enter into
the demarcated function of the investigation and collection of
evidence/materials for establishing the offence and interrogation
of the accused and the witnesses – Since, the respondent had
collected documents/materials for custodial interrogation of the
appellant, the submission of the respondent was accepted for the
limited purpose of refusing pre-arrest bail to the appellant – Penal
Code, 1860 – s.120B r/w. s.13(1)(d).
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3 and 4 –
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – s.8 and 13(2) – r/w. s.13(1)(d)
– Interrogation of the accused – Interferences of Judiciary in –
Held: Interrogation of the accused and the answers elicited from
the accused and the opinion whether the answers given by the
accused are ‘satisfactory’ or ‘evasive’, is purely within the domain
of the investigating agency and the Court cannot substitute its views
by conducting mini trial at various stages of investigation.
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – ss.3 and 4 –
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.438 – Grant of anticipatory
bail – Prosecution alleged irregularities in Foreign Investment
Promotion Board (FIPB) clearance given to a company for receiving
foreign investment to the tune of Rs.305 crores against approved
inflow of Rs.4.62 crores – Appellant was the then finance minister –
FIR was registered – Enforcement Directorate also registered a case
u/ss. 3 and 4 of PMLA against the accused persons – High Court
dismissed the application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the
appellant – On appeal, held: Power u/s.438 Cr.P.C. is an
extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly
more so, in cases of economic offences – Economic offences stand
as a different class as they effect the economic fabric of the society
– Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate
the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in
collecting the useful information and also the materials which might
have been conce

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.