In a temporary reprieve for Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee, the Calcutta High Court recently issued an order to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to provide a prior notice of 48 hours before summoning Banerjee in connection with the school jobs for cash scam [Abhishek Banerjee vs Ramesh Malik].
The Court also directed the ED to thoroughly examine the evidence at hand and only if it deems Banerjee's personal appearance necessary, should it issue summons to him.
The order was issued by a division bench comprising Justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar, after taking into account the argument put forth by Banerjee's counsel that he is consistently served with summons by the ED whenever he plans to participate in his political party's rally.
"The ED shall carefully examine the evidence and if it determines that the presence of the applicant is required, it shall issue summons to the applicant, providing him with a notice of 48 hours in advance. It is important to emphasize that the ED, in making such a decision, must act fairly, impartially, and not be influenced by any remarks made by the single-judge," the judges stated in the order issued on October 5.
Furthermore, the bench acknowledged the submission that Justice Amrita Sinha, the single-judge presiding over the school jobs for cash scam case, had been making certain oral remarks against Banerjee and other parties involved in the litigation.
The bench has expressed its desire for the single-judge to bear in mind that no adverse remarks should be made against any individuals who are under investigation, as this could potentially prejudice their rights in the event that any proceedings are initiated following the conclusion of the investigation.
The Court has emphasized that it is committed to ensuring a fair, speedy, impartial, and time-bound investigation. It is important to note that any negative observations made against individuals who have been summoned could be detrimental to their interests and may influence the investigation and trial.
The Court's aim is to ensure that the investigating agency collects and collates all relevant information and files its final report in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure.
The bench has clarified that Justice Sinha has not exceeded his jurisdiction in this case. The Court was hearing a plea filed by Banerjee, who was challenging orders passed by Justice Sinha on September 28, as well as her oral observations made during the hearings on September 25, 27, and 28 against the ED and Banerjee herself.
It is worth noting that the judge had removed the head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the ED, citing a lack of confidence after he failed to provide satisfactory answers to the court's queries regarding the insufficient information on Banerjee's assets.
The single-judge had expressed shock at the fact that Banerjee's assets only consisted of three insurance policies and had raised concerns about the ED's investigation in the case. After hearing the arguments, the division bench has concluded that an investigation in this case is necessary due to the enormity of questionable cash transactions in the education recruitment scam.
The bench has observed that the magnitude of the scam is beyond comprehension and that a fair investigation is necessary to restore trust and faith in the system.
It is the responsibility of all to ensure that the culprits are brought to justice and the corrupt are punished. The bench has noted that the report filed by the ED was unsatisfactory due to the unavailability of information on the date of the report, as the required documents were not supplied.
The court, while monitoring the probe of an agency appointed by it, can enquire from the agency if all the information has been received, as the final decision of the ED has to be based on the evidence collected.
The bench has emphasized that the court should not act as a prosecutor and should be cautious and careful in discussing matters forming the subject matter of investigation, as any observation by the court might prejudice the person against whom the summon is issued.
The bench has further opined that Banerjee is entitled to know the outcome of the investigation and can legitimately expect a quick conclusion. Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Jishnu Saha, Kishore Dutta, along with advocates Amit Bhandari, Jishnu Chowdhury, Rajarshi Datta, Soumen Mohanty, Ayan Poddar, Piyush Kr Ray, and Agnish Basu appeared for the Petitioner. Senior Advocate Bikash Ranjan Bhattacharya, along with advocates Sudipta Dasgupt, Bikram Banerjee, Dipa Acharyya, Arka Nandi, Firdous Samim, Gopa Biswas, Payel Shome, Sampriti Saha, and Avijit Kar appeared for the Petitioners.
Deputy Solicitor General Billwadal Bhattacharyya, along with Advocates Arijit Majumdar, represented the CBI. Deputy Solicitor Generals Dhiraj Trivedi, Billwadal Bhattacharyya, and advocate Samrat Goswami represented ED.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Calcutta High Court Justice Soumen Sen Abhishek Banerjee Justice Amrita Sinha Justice Uday Kumar School Jobs for Cash Scam
