IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 6069 of 2007 Raghunath Prasad, son of late Shital Prasad, resident of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, Dist – Patna – 800 007 -Petitioner Versus 1 The Reserve Bank of India, having its office at South Gandhi Maidan, Town and District – Patna through its Regional Director 2 The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001, through its Chief General Manager 3 Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001 4 The Central Bureau of Investigation, having its office at S K Sinha Road, off Bailey Road, Patna through the Deputy Inspector General of Police -Respondents W I T H CWJC No 6466 of 2007 Raghunath Prasad, son of late Shital Prasad, resident of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, Dist – Patna – 800 007 -Petitioner Versus 1 The Reserve Bank of India, having its office at South Gandhi Maidan, Town and District – Patna through its Regional Director 2 The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001, through its Chief General Manager 3 Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001 4 The Central Bureau of Investigation, having its office at S K Sinha Road, off Bailey Road, Patna through the Deputy Inspector General of Police -Respondents W I T H CWJC No 7529 of 2007 1 Smt Kalpana, wife of Ashok Kumar, resident of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, District – Patna – 800 007 2 Ashok Kumar, son of Raghunath Prasad, resident of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, District – Patna – 800 007 -Petitioners Versus 1 The Reserve Bank of India, having its office at South Gandhi Maidan, Town and District – Patna through its Regional Director 2The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001, through its Chief General Manager 3 Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001 4 The Central Bureau of Investigation, having its office at S K Sinha Road, off Bailey Road, Patna through the Deputy Inspector General of Police -Respondents W I T H CWJC No 7550 of 2007 1 Smt Manisha, wife of Sanjay Kumar, resident of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, District – Patna – 800 007 2 Sanjay Kumar, son of Raghunath Prasad, resident of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, District – Patna – 800 007 -Petitioners Versus 2 1 The Reserve Bank of India, having its office at South Gandhi Maidan, Town and District – Patna through its Regional Director 2 The Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001, through its Chief General Manager 3 Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Public Debt Office, 15 Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700 001 4 The Central Bureau of Investigation, having its office at S K Sinha Road, off Bailey Road, Patna through the Deputy Inspector General of Police -Respondents *** For the petitioners : M/s Y V Giri, Sr Advocate & Jyoti Sharan, Advocate For the C B I : Mr Bipin Kr Sinha, SCCBI For the R B I : Mr Sanjay Kumar, CGC *** 7 21.04.2009 The questions involved in the present writ applications are same and the facts being similar, with consent of parties, these four writ applications have been heard at this stage for its final disposal. The petitioners are basically aggrieved by the non- encashment of the Gold Bonds 1998 by the Reserve Bank of India which was purchased by them. The Reserve Bank of India purports to act under orders of the Central Bureau of Investigation which has merely, by a letter, put a Stop Encashment Order. Counter affidavits have been filed by the Reserve Bank of India and the Central Bureau of Investigation, the latter having filed a supplementary counter affidavit as well and rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners. The petitioners are family members of one family. 3 Raghunath Prasad, son of late Shital Prasad is the Karta of his HUF. His wife, now deceased, is Saraswati Devi. He has four sons who were all major at the relevant time being Ashok Kumar, Arun Kumar, Sanjay Kumar and Kumar Rajive Ranjan. Smt Kalpana is the wife of Ashok Kumar and Smt Manisha is the wife of Sanjay Kumar. Raghunath Prasad, in the capacity of Karta of his HUF, is the writ petitioner in CWJC No 6069 of 2007. He is also the petitioner in CWJC No 6466 of 2007. Smt Kalpana, wife of Ashok Kumar and Ashok Kumar are petitioners in CWJC No 7529 of 2007 and Smt Manisha, wife of Sanjay Kumar and Sanjay Kumar are petitioners in CWJC No 7550 of 2007. All the writ petitioners and the other two sons of Raghunath Prasad, namely, Arun Kumar and Kumar Rajive Ranjan are all residents of Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, Dist – Patna. The writ petitioners had purchased Gold Bonds 1998 as issued by Government of India through the Reserve Bank of India on or about 10.06.1993 and had given their address as above noted. It appears Government of India being in need of gold for meeting international commitments floated the said Gold Bonds 1998 under which persons could give gold in various quantities in lieu whereof they were to be given Government stocks of Gold Bonds 1998 equivalent to the weight in gold given by them. The holder of the stock, on expiry of five years, were entitled to receive the same quantity of gold of 0.995% purity alongwith interest at the rate of Rs 40 per gram of such gold. The bonds were transferable. The scheme was notified by the 4 Central Government on 18.02.1993. The petitioners deposited gold in various quantities and were issued certificates and receipts respectively as here in under mentioned : Sl Case No Name Book Debt Certificate Dt: 10.6.’93 No: Gold Final Receipt No 1 CWJC No 6069/07 Raghunath Prasad (HUF), S/o late Shital Prasad, R/o Balkishunganj, PO – Gulzarbagh, PS – Alamganj, Patna BY/RCA-1908 BY/RCA-1909 500 gms 549 gms RBCA 2158 for 1049 gms 2 CWJC No 6466/07 Raghunath Prasad (HUF) + Saraswati Devi, wife (now deceased) BY/RCA-1342 BY/RCA-1343 582 gms 582 gms RBCA 2159 for 1164 gms 3 CWJC No 7529/07 1 Smt Kalpana w/o Ashok Kr 2 Ashok Kr S/o Raghunath Pd BY/RCA-1344 760 gms RBCA 2160 for 760 gms 4 CWJC No 7550/07 1 Smt Manisha w/o Sanjay Kumar 2 Sanjay Kumar s/o Raghunath Pd BY/RCA-2219 761 gms RBCA 2161 for 761 gms While purchasing the certificates, they all had given their Patna residential address, as indicated above. When they went for encashment, on maturity of the said bonds, they were first asked to complete formalities for encashment but then they were told by the Reserve Bank of India that Central Bureau of Investigation had put a Stop Encashment Order in respect of all their bonds and, as such, it was not in a position to permit encashment. They waited but nothing came 5 out of it, hence, they have approached this Court. Central Bureau of Investigation has justified its action and given out the circumstances under which such orders were passed by it as far back as on 10.07.1996. Admittedly and undisputedly, there was no correspondence or communication as between the Central Bureau of Investigation and the petitioners in regard to the said bonds at any point of time upto date. Again, it is not disputed by any party much less by Central Bureau of Investigation that they either took any permission or order for such an action from any Court of competent jurisdiction nor was the action taken under or with information to any Court of competent jurisdiction at any point of time nor is it the case of the Central Bureau of Investigation that having issued the Stop Order, they informed any competent Court regarding the same and made the said action subject to judicial orders of any competent Court. Again, they have not been led in evidence in any case before any Court of competent jurisdiction. They have not been tendered as prosecution evidence in any case subject to investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation. As per the counter affidavit and the supplementary counter affidavit of the Central Bureau of Investigation, they have brought on record facts to justify their action though neither in their counter affidavits nor in course of argument, they were able to relate to any statutory provision under which they purported to act in the manner in which they have. From the facts brought on record by the CBI, it appears that while investigating the several cases relating to now 6 infamous Animal Husbandry Scam, they searched the office premises of a prime accused Dr Brij Nandan Sharma and recovered, inter alia, some letters and correspondences with reference to Gold Bonds Scheme, 1993 which correspondences were of the period 1995. Dr Brij Nandan Sharma was the then District Animal Husbandry Officer, Ranchi. On basis thereof, the Central Bureau of Investigation wrote a confidential letter to the Reserve Bank of India on 05.07.1996, a copy whereof has been marked as Annexure-R4/B to the supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of CBI. I deem it necessary to reproduce the said letter : (LETTER- Annexure R4/C) Confidential (BY SPEED POST) No 2966/3/53 (A)/96-Pat Office of the Supdt of Police, CBI/SPE Divn, Ranchi Branch, 2, Booty Road, Ranchi – 8 Dated the 5 July/96 To Shri K N Gangurde, Chief General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road, MUMBAI – 400 001 Sub:- Case No RC-53 (A)/96-Pat U/s 409/420/467/468/471/472/474/120B IPC and Sec 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (c) & (d) of P C Act, 1988, relating to Animal Husbandry Scam Cases of Bihar Sir, In pursuance of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Bihar, Patna, the investigation of above noted case has been taken up by this Branch. 7 During investigation of this case it was revealed that Gold Bonds were purchased in the names of family members of the accused Dr Brij Nandan Sharma, the then District Animal Husbandry Officer, Ranchi under ‘Gold Bond Scheme, 1993’ from Reserve Bank of India, Calcutta. The address of said Sri Brij Nandan Sharma is Road No 5, Plot No A/356, Ashok Nagar, Distt : Ranchi, Bihar. It is suspected that the investors may have given some other addresses while obtaining Gold Bonds. These addresses may be 18 – Dover lane Calcutta -29 or an address of Patna and Chaibasa. During the office search of the accused Sri B N Sharma, a letter no 1080 dt 3.8.95 containing the reference of Gold Bond – 1998 – RBCA, 2487, PDO/NNGB/034400/10654/94-95 dt 26.6.95 has been recovered. The abovementioned Gold Bonds are suspected to have been purchased under ‘Gold Bond Scheme, 1993’ in the names of following persons :- 1) Sri Rajiv Ranjan - son of Sri B N Sharma 2) Smt Lalita Kumari - wife of Sri B N Sharma 3) Ms Rashmi Rani - Daughter of Sri B N Sharma 4) Ms Nirja - Daughter of Sri B N Sharma 5) Sri Arun Singh - - 6) Sri Arjun Singh - - 7) Sri Brij Nandan Sharma - self For the purpose of investigation of the above noted case, following informations are urgently required by this office : 1) Weight of Gold deposited in the name of aforesaid persons. 2) Value of Gold at the time of deposit. 3) Stocks Certificate/Gold Bond numbers issued to the above noted persons. 4) Date of issue of Gold Bond. 5) Any other details available in respect of the said Gold Bond. 8 It is, therefore, requested that the above information may kindly be furnished to this office at the earliest. It is also requested that the Gold Bonds standing in the names of above named persons may not be permitted to be transferred without prior permission of the Spl Judge, CBI (Animal Husbandry Cases, Patna) as well as without the prior knowledge of the undersigned, in as much as the subject Gold Bonds are alleged to have been acquired by ill-gotten money earned by said Sri B N Sharma, by defrauding the Govt of Bihar. As the Hon’ble High Court, Bihar has ordered for time bound investigation in AHD Scam cases, as such an early action in the matter will be highly appreciated. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Superintendent of Police, CBI : SPE : RANCHI. Dated : 5/7/96 No 2967-68/3/53 (A)/96-Pat Copy for favour of information to : 1 The JD (East), CBI, Calcutta 2 The DIG, CBI, Patna Region, Patna ------------- A reference to this letter, which is the beginning point, would clearly show the names of various family members and suspected associates of the said Shri B N Sharma which are clearly listed. For the purpose of present case, two names, as mentioned therein, are relevant. One is Shri Rajive Ranjan, son of Shri B N Sharma and other Shri Arun Singh. Another important fact is that the addresses, which could be there 9 related to these persons, were of Ranchi, Kolkata, Patna or Chaibasa. This letter was immediately responded to by the Reserve Bank of India by their letter dated 10th July, 1996 which is Annexure-R4/C to the supplementary counter affidavit of the CBI and relevant portion thereof is quoted hereunder : “2. It appears from a quick scrutiny of our records that no application was made in the name of Dr Brij Nandan Sharma. It may be seen from the Annexure that in application No RBCA-2156 for Gold Bonds Shri Kumar Rajiv Ranjan has furnished an address different from the one indicated in your letter under reply. Further, this application has been submitted by him jointly with one Shri Arun Kumar. In addition to Shri Arun Kumar, we have also included in the Annexure the names of certain other persons, though not indicated in your letter, because the address given by Shri Kumar Rajiv Ranjan and all other applicants is the same and all these applications have been submitted on the same day in a continuous serial1 order. Copies of all the six applications are enclosed.” As referred to in the said letter of Reserve Bank of India, a chart was enclosed of all the family members of the petitioners because their address was Balkishunganj, Gulzarbagh, Patna. They had been issued the bonds on 10.06.1993 and the only thing that connected them with Dr B N Sharma was the two names as noticed in the letter of Reserve Bank of India. As noted above, the CBI had informed that Dr B N Sharma had a son Rajive Ranjan and an associate Arun Singh. The resemblance was to the son of Raghunath Prasad, Kumar Rajive Ranjan and Arun Kumar. Beyond this, there was nothing more. It is also a matter of record placed by CBI that bonds of various other persons in their names and addresses were also reported and Stop Order issued. We are not concerned with those. It is simply on these resemblances in name and nothing more that CBI has acted in such a manner. Now in their counter 10 affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit, an attempt to justify their action has been taken by making certain suggestions. It is now stated that Kumar Rajive Ranjan is an accused in Animal Husbandry Scam cases. From their own counter affidavit, it is clear that this is not correct. It is Rajive Ranjan, son of Dr B N Sharma of Ranchi who is accused and not Kumar Rajive Ranjan. Another accused is Arun Singh who is now sought to be confused with Arun Kumar who is the son of Raghunath Prasad of Patna. It is then stated that Rajive Ranjan was a minor but a reference to the application for Gold Bond 1998, as appended, would show that the application was by Kumar Rajive Ranjan who was not a minor. It is just on basis of these that the CBI has taken such a drastic action to virtually seize the properties of the petitioners, the authority, the legality and propriety of which is under challenge. It may also be noted here that Reserve Bank of India, having disclosed the said information, at no point of time were any of the petitioners questioned by CBI nor any correspondences were addressed to them. They have also not been made an accused in any capacity in any of the Animal Husbandry Scam cases or for that matter in any case. In fairness to the learned counsel for the CBI, it must be stated that he did not dispute at the Bar that even though the said B N Sharma has been tried and convicted in some of the Animal Husbandry Scam cases, these gold bonds were not made subject matter of any of those proceedings in any manner. Thus, the question is can this virtual seizure be allowed to continue. From the facts stated above, it would be seen that this Stop 11 Order was not pursuant to any order of any Court nor it has been made subject matter of any Court proceedings as no Court has been informed about this action nor any order obtained even thereafter from any Court in respect thereto. The CBI has also not referred to any statutory authority under which they have acted in this regard. They have not moved any application in respect thereof before any Court of competent jurisdiction for their forfeiture or confiscation yet merely on the apparent spacious plea of similarity in name, they have justified their continued action in this regard. I venture to mention that they have tried to confuse this Court also against the records by mentioning that Kumar Rajive Ranjan is an accused but their own affidavits show that it is Rajive Ranjan who has been, much later, made an accused in the Animal Husbandry Scam cases. If the actions of CBI were truly in bona fide then the least that was expected was some correspondence with the petitioners. None has been brought on record or pleaded. Thus, the only link on which CBI has acted is the alleged semblance in two names and the whole family has been roped in without any further material brought on record. This, in my opinion, is rather spacious plea and cannot be accepted when the consequences are so drastic. Petitioners are deprived of their property on such a vague and spacious plea even without disclosing any material connection and any authority for such an action. I must consider two objections raised by CBI. First, that writ petitions are not proper remedy and second this Court should not entertain the writ applications. To the first, the answer is given by the Apex Court as far back as in the case of Wazir Chand & Another – 12 Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh & Others since reported in AIR 1954 Supreme Court 415 wherein the Court held that where goods are seized illegally under no apparent authority of law, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was available. To the second objection, one can only say that the petitioners are holding the bonds which is moveable property and transferable as such and they reside at Patna and it is their property which is subject matter of the writ applications and is located at Patna. In terms of Article-226 (2) of the Constitution, part cause of action does arise at Patna and the writ applications are maintainable at Patna. Before I part, in respect of what was argued on behalf of CBI, I must refer to what the Apex Court said four and a half decades back in the case of Bishan Das –Versus- State of Punjab since reported in AIR 1961 SC 1570 and, in particular, what was noted, inter alia, in paragraphs-12, 13 and 14 of the said reports : “… … … The argument is not only spacious but highly dangerous by reasons of its implications and impact on law and order.” … … … “In these circumstances, the action of the Government in taking the law into their hands and dispossessing the petitioners by the display of force, exhibits callous disregard of the normal requirements of rule of law and apart from what might legitimately and reasonably be expected from a Government functioning in a society governed by a Constitution which guarantees to its citizens against arbitrary invasion by the executive of peaceful possession of property. As pointed out by this Court in Wazir Chand –Versus- State of Himachal Pradesh (1955 (1) SCR 408 : AIR 1954 SC 415), the State or its executive officers cannot interfere with the rights of others unless they can point to some specific rule of law which authorises their acts. In Ram Prasad Narayan Sahi –Versus- State of Bihar (1953 SCR 1129 : AIR 1953 SC 215), this Court said that nothing is more likely to drain the vitality from rule of law than legislation which singles out a particular individual from his fellow subjects and visits him with a disability which is not imposed upon others. We have here a highly discriminatory and autocratic act which deprives a person of 13 the possession of property without reference to any law or legal authority. … … …” “The reasons given for this extraordinary action are to quote what we said in Sahi’s case (supra), remarkable for their disturbing implications.” Thus found, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the CBI cannot be justified. Petitioners are entitled to the encashment of the said Gold Bonds and the Reserve Bank of India is under obligation to permit such encashment. The writ applications are, thus, allowed in terms, as indicated above. M.E.H./AFR ( Navaniti Prasad Singh)