Case: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE Vs. RAHUL MODI


Decision:
1[ds]19. The act of directing remand of an accused is thus held to be a judicial function and the challenge to the order of remand is not to be entertained in a habeas corpus petition. The first question posed by the High Court, thus, stands answered. In the present case, as on the date when the matter was considered by the High Court and the Order was passed by it, not only were there orders of remand passed by the Judicial Magistrateas well as the Special Court, Gurugram but there was also an order of extension passed by the Central Government on 14.12.2018. The legality, validity and correctness of the order or remand could have been challenged by the original Writ Petitioners by filing appropriate proceedings. However, they did not raise such challenge before the competent Appellate or Revisional Forum. The orders of remand passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Special Court, Gurugram had dealt with merits of the matter and whether continued detention of the accused was justified or not. After going into the relevant issues on merits, the accused were remanded to further police custody. These orders were not put in challenge before the High Court. It was, therefore, not open to the High Court to entertain challenge with regard to correctness of those orders. The High Court, however, considered the matter from the standpoint whether the initial Order of arrest itself was valid or not and found that such legality could not be sanctified by subsequent Order of remand. Principally, the issue which was raised before the High Court was whether the arrest could be effected after period of investigation, as stipulated in said order dated 20.06.2018 had come to an end. The supplementary issue was the effect of extension of time as granted on 14.12.2018. It is true that the arrest was effected when the period had expired but by the time the High Court entertained the petition, there was as order of extension passed by the Central Government on 14.12.2018. Additionally, there were judicial orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate as well as the Special Court, Gurugram, remanding the accused to custody. If we go purely by the law laid down by this Court with regard to exercise of jurisdiction in respect of Habeas Corpus petition, the High Court was not justified in entertaining the petition and passing the Order.20. We must, however, deal with the submission advanced on behalf of the original Writ Petitioners that the relief as regards Habeas Corpus was a secondary prayer while the principal submissions were with regard to the first three prayers in the petition. It was submitted that with the expiry of period, the entire mandate came to an end and as such, there could be no arrest and that illegality in that behalf would continue regardless whether there was a subsequent order of extension. In the submission of the learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner such an extension could not cure the inherent defect and as such, the High Court was justified in entertaining the petition. We may deal with this issue after considering the second question posed by the High Court in said paragraph 15.It is true that the decision in Dashrath Rupsingh Radhod (2014) 9 SCC 129  was in the context of a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and not while dealing with an issue of maintainability of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the present case, the High Court completely lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition. However, since the challenge was with respect to the detention pursuant to valid remand orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate and the Special Court, Gurugram, in our considered view, theHigh Court should not have entertained the challenge. If the act of directing remand is fundamentally a judicial function, correctness or validity of such orders could, if at all, be tested in a properly instituted proceedings before the appellate or revisional forum. In the circumstances even if the arrests were effected within the jurisdiction of the High Court, since the accused were produced before a competent court in pursuance of Sections 435, 436 of 2013 Act, the High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition. However, since the High Court considered the matter from the standpoint whether the initial Order of arrest itself was valid or not and then found that such illegality could not be sanctified by subsequent Order of remand, we may deal with that question now.Reading of the provisions of 2013 Act shows that certain Sections in Chapter XXIX prescribe punishment for offences such as fraud, false statement, false evidence and withholding of property under Sections 447, 448, 449 and 452 respectively. The punishment for fraud involving an amount of at least Rs.10 lakhs or 1 per cent of the turnover of the Company, is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years. The offence of fraud in relation to the affairs of a Company is considered to be a grave offence and the writ petitioners were allegedly guilty of such offence. Chapter XIV of 2013 Act deals with Inspection, Inquiry and Investigation. Under Section 210, investigation into the affairs of a Company can be undertaken. Section 211 contemplates establishment of Serious Fraud Investigation Offence (SFIO) which is to be headed by a Director and is to consist of Experts with ability, integrity and experience in fields like Banking, Corporate Affairs, Taxation, Forensic Audit, Capital Market, Information Technology, Law or such other fields. SFIO headed by a Director is thus a compact and competent unit consisting of experts in various domains. Section 212 empowers the Central Government to assign the investigation into the affairs of a Company to SFIO. Upon such assignment the Director SFIO may designate such number of inspectors under sub-Section (1) and shall cause the affairs of the Company to be investigated by an Investigating Officer undersub-Section (4). The expression used in sub-Section (1) isSub-Section (2) incorporates an important principle that upon such assignment by the Central Government to SFIO, no other investigating agency of the Central Government or any State Government can proceed with investigation in respect of any offence punishable under 2013 Act and is bound to transfer the documents and records in respect of such offence under 2013 Act to SFIO.Section 212(3) of 2013 Act by itself does not lay down any fixed period within which the report has to be submitted. Even under sub-Section (12) which is regarding, again there is no stipulation of any period. In fact such a report under sub-Section (12) is to be submittedcompletion of theThere is no stipulation of any fixedperiod for completion of investigation which is consistent with normal principles under the general law. For instance, there is no fixed period within which the investigation under Criminal Procedure Code must be completed. If the investigation proceeds for a longer period, under Section 167 of the Code certain rights may flow in favour of the Accused. But it is certainly not the idea that in case the investigation is not over within any fixed period, the authority to investigate would come to an end.Again, sub-Section (2) of Section 213 of 2013 Act does not speak of any period for which the other Investigating Agencies are to hold their hands, nor does the provision speak of any re-transfer of the relevant documents and records from SFIO back to said Investigating Agencies after any period or occurring of an event.29. The very expressionin Section 212(3) of 2013 Act contemplates transfer of investigation for all purposes whereafter the original Investigating Agencies of the Central Government or any State Government are completely denuded of any power to conduct and complete the investigation in respect of the offences contemplated therein. The idea under sub-Section (2) is complete transfer of investigation. The transfer under sub- Section (2) of Section 213 would not stand revoked or recalled in any contingency. If a time limit is construed and contemplated within which the investigation must be completed then logically, the provisions would have dealt with as to what must happen if the time limit is not adhered to. The Statute must also have contemplated a situation that a valid investigation undertaken by any Investigating Agency of Central Government or State Government which was transferred to SFIO, must then be re-transferred to said Investigating Agencies. But the Statute does not contemplate that. The transfer is irrevocable and cannot be recalled in any manner. Once assigned, SFIO continues to have the power to conduct and complete investigation 18 . If that be so, can such power stand curtailed or diminished if the investigation is not completed within a particular period. The Statute has not prescribed any period for completion of investigation. The prescription in the instant case came in the order of 20.06.2018. Whether such prescription in the Order could be taken as curtailing the powers of SFIO is the issue.30. It is well settled that while laying down a particular procedure if no negative or adverse consequences are contemplated for non-adherence to such procedure, the relevant provision is normally not taken to be mandatory and is considered to be purely directory. Furthermore, the provision has to be seen in the context in which it occurs in the Statute. There are three basic features which are present in thisAbsolute transfer of investigation in terms of Section 212(2) of 2013 Act in favour of SFIO and upon such transfer all documents and records are required to be transferred to SFIO by every other Investigating Agency.2. For completion of investigation, sub-Section (12) of Section 212 does not contemplate any period.3. Under sub-Section (11) of Section 212 there could be interim reports as and when directed. In the face of these three salient features it cannot be said that the prescription of period within which a report is to be submitted by SFIO under sub-Section (3) of Section 212 is for completion of period of investigation and on the expiry of that period the mandate in favour of SFIO must come to an end. If it was to come to an end, the legislation would have contemplated certain results including re-transfer of investigation back to the original Investigating Agencies which were directed to transfer the entire record under sub-Section (2) of Section 212. In the absence of any clear stipulation, in our view, an interpretation that with the expiry of the period, the mandate in favour of SFIO must come to an end, will cause great violence to the scheme of legislation. If such interpretation is accepted, with the transfer of investigation in terms of sub Section (2) of Section 212 the original Investigating Agencies would be denuded of power to investigate and with the expiry of mandate SFIO would also be powerless which would lead to an incongruous situation that serious frauds would remain beyond investigation. That could never have been the idea. The only construction which is, possible therefore, is that the prescription of period within which a report has to be submitted to the Central Government under sub-Section (3) of Section 212 is purely directory. Even after the expiry of such stipulated period, the mandate in favour of the SFIO and the assignment of investigation under sub-Section (1) would not come to an end. The only logical end as contemplated is after completion of investigation when a final report oris submitted in terms of sub-Section (12) of Section 212. It cannot therefore be said that in the instant case the mandate came to an end on 19.09.2018 and the arrest effected on 10.12.2018 under the orders passed by Director, SFIO was in any way illegal or unauthorised by law. In any case, extension was granted in the present case by the Central Government on 14.12.2018. But that is completely besides the point since the original arrest itself was not in any way illegal. In our considered view, the High Court completely erred in proceeding on that premise and in passing the order under appeal.