HARI KRISHAN BHATIA V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

CWP/7161/2013

AI Insights

Hari Krishan Bhatia, engaged in import and export business, filed a petition seeking the release of Rs.3 lacs seized by the Enforcement Directorate from Antaryami Anand, who was allegedly handling transactions for Bhatia. The money was seized during a police action in Chandigarh. Bhatia claimed the money belonged to him and made several representations to the Enforcement Directorate for its return, which were not decided upon. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the ownership of the money was disputed and could not be resolved in writ proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 737580 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, Income Tax Act, 1961, Code of Criminal Procedure
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: VENEET SHARMA
• Keywords: Enforcement Directorate; Import Export; Seizure of money; Seizure of money; Supardari; Writ of Mandamus; Importer-Exporter Code
• Section: 102; 109

Judgement Text

"C.W.P. No.7161 OF 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P. No.7161 OF 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 04.04.2013 Hari Krishan Bhatia ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? RAJIV NARAIN RAINA , J. (ORAL) The petitioner works out of Amritsar and is engaged in the business of import and export through a concern run by him in the name and style of Rosh Enterprises (India). His firm holds a certificate of Importer-Exporter Code (IEC) bearing IEC No.1205001263 dated 23.08.2005 issued by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India. The petitioner alleges that he purchased crockery from a firm in Uttar Pradesh known as M/s Ganesh Metals, Shamli. The payment for the said crockery, according to the petitioner, was collected on his behalf by one Antaryami Anand, who collected the money and proceeded to Chandigarh on 18.03.2010. While in Chandigarh the local police apprehended Antaryami Anand and booked him in a case under Sections 109/102 Cr.P.C. vide DDR No.62 dated 18.03.2010 lodged at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh. An amount of Rs.3 lacs found from the person of Antaryami Anand, was seized by the police. Antaryami Anand made an application before the trial Court for release of Rs.3 lacs cash seized by the police on supurdari. On notice issued by the trial court on the supurdari application, the police submitted C.W.P. No.7161 OF 2013 -2- a report that the amount had been forwarded to the Directorate of Enforcement, under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The application was moved by Antaryami Anand claiming the amount as his own. This was so stated in the supardari application dated 15.04.2010. Earlier, on 19.03.2010, the residential house of the petitioner and that of Antaryami Anand was searched by the Enforcement Directorate and certain documents were seized from the petitioner, enumerated in the panchnama dated 19.03.2010. The business deals of the petitioner were put under the scanner by the Enforcement Directorate by issuing summons to him to appear for inquiry. The petitioner's statement was recorded on 26.05.2010. He was directed to produce copy of the statements of accounts of M/s Ganesh Metals vide letter dated 19.01.2011, which was duly supplied by him. The Enforcement Directorate proceeded against the proprietor of M/s Ganesh Metals as well, who was summoned at Lucknow by the Enforcement Directorate there. It is pleaded in Paragraph 11 of the petition that Avilas Mittal of M/s Ganesh Metals disclosed that he had purchased crockery from the petitioner and had made payment to Antaryami Anand for onward payment to the petitioner. Since Rs.3 lacs remained in custody of the Enforcement Directorate, the petitioner made a representation dated 06.05.2011 to the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, Chandigarh, for return of money on the plea that it belongs to him. This was followed by another application on 09.09.2011 to the Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Jalandhar. The petitioner pleads that he made two other representations dated 24.10.2011 and 28.01.2013 for the said purpose. Now, three years have gone by and the amount has not been released to the petitioner nor any decision on the representations have been C.W.P. No.7161 OF 2013 -3- conveyed to him to enable him to seek his further remedy in accordance with law. In this background, the present petition has been filed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs.3 lacs stated to be belonging to the petitioner and which has been illegally retained by the Directorate of Enforcement. Interest @ 18 % per annum has also been prayed for on the principal amount seized from the date of retention till the date of release. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been investigated under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 and under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records made available with the petition. The petitioner has appended to this petition the supardari application preferred before the Ilaqa Magistrate, Chandigarh. The application has not been made by him. To the contrary, Antaryami Anand, who is not party to this petition, has claimed in the application that the amount of Rs.3 lacs belongs to him. The amount of Rs.3 lacs was seized from the person of Antaryami Anand. The final order, if any, passed in the supurdari application has not been placed on the record of this case. There is also no mention in the body of the petition as to the final outcome of that application. If Antaryami Anand claims the money as his it follows that no claim on the ownership of money can be said to arise in the hands of the petitioner. Assuming that the supurdari application had been dismissed and the release of Rs.3 lacs were denied, the remedy of a revision petition would have been competent at the hands of Antaryami Anand. There is no averment in the petition whether such remedy was availed by Antaryami Anand. In the face of the application dated 15.04.2010, it is not possible for this Court in writ jurisdiction to hold that C.W.P. No.7161 OF 2013 -4- Rs.3 lacs belongs to the petitioner over which he can claim any right. The motive and objective of the present petition appears to be to obtain orders from this Court, which may impact the trial, if any, of Antaryami Anand. The absence of any straight forward averments in the petition shows lack of bona fides. No ground for interference is made out for this Court to enter into seriously and apparently disputed questions of fact regarding ownership over the disputed amount and would, therefore, dismiss the petition. If the petitioner continues to stake claim on the amount, he may have recourse to alternative remedies, if any available, as law may provide. No directions as prayed for can be issued in writ proceedings when ownership of money has not been established and cannot possibly be determined in summary affidavit jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is devoid of merit and would stand dismissed. 04.04.2013 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) adhikari JUDGE "