‘Adverse remarks against government servants have deleterious impact on their careers’; Delhi HC obliterates adverse observations against ED in Trial Court’s order

‘The law is clear that custody of an accused can be sought even after filing of a chargesheet or complaint.’

Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court: In a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’) by the Directorate of Enforcement (‘ED’) (petitioner) to challenge order dated 05-10-2024 passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI), Rouse Avenue District Court, a Single Judge Bench of Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J. expunged the observations made by the Special Judge in orders dated 05-10-2024 and 19-10-2024 to the extent that they had been mentioned in the petition.

Background

In the present matter, ED prayed before the Court for striking off certain remarks that were made by the Special Judge in the order dated 05-10-2024, pursuant to which certain steps and directions had been issued in the subsequent order dated 19-10-2024. It was submitted that the said remarks were directly related to the competence, integrity, and credibility of the Investigating Officer who was the Assistant Director in ED.

It was also submitted that in the subsequent order dated 19-10-2024, the Special Judge again made some observations that were ex facie unfounded and misconceived, and appeared to arise from a misunderstanding of the extant position of law. It was also submitted that there was nothing on record for the Special Judge to make such observations, which resulted in summoning the Director of ED vide order dated 19-10-2024.

Further, it was submitted that the Director of ED had no role in the day-to-day investigation of the matter and therefore, there was no reason why his personal presence was contemplated by the Special Judge.

Analysis and Decision

The Court said that the ED had given details and specifics of the steps taken and efforts exercised by them to trace and serve summons on the accused in the matter being investigated by them.

The Court referred to the extant position of law as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Dinesh Dalmia v. CBI (2007) 8 SCC 770 and Tarsem Lal v. Enforcement Directorate (2024) 7 SCC 61 and said that it was persuaded to agree with the submissions made on behalf of ED and that the law was clear that the custody of an accused could be sought even after filing of chargesheet or complaint.

The Court referred to few other decisions and said that it needed no emphasis that adverse remarks made by a court against government servants have a deleterious impact on their official record and their careers, especially if such remarks are unwarranted or unjustified. Thus, the observations made by the Special Judge in the orders dated 05-10-2024 and 19-10-2024 were expunged by the Court.

Lastly, while disposing of the petition, the Court clarified that there was no stay on the on-going proceedings before the Special Judge and that the present order should not be construed as an observation on the said proceedings.

[Enforcement Directorate v. Lakshay Vij, CRL.M.C. 8399 of 2024, Decided on 24-10-2024]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

For Petitioner — Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, SPP Manish Jain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani, Advocate Pranjal Tripathi, Advocate Suradhish Vats

For Respondents — Advocate Vanya Gupta

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *