Gaurav Budhia vs Union of India

Rakesh Ranjan Prasad, J.—An Interlocutory application bearing No. 2222 of 2011 has been filed wherein prayer has been made to allow him to incorporate the prayer for quashing of the order dated 28-10-2009 passed by the Sub-Judge-II Economic Officer, Dhanbad in C.O. case No. 1 of 2009. The prayer made in the interlocutory application is hereby allowed.

The said interlocutory application shall form part of the main writ application.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23-9-2011 and also by the order dated 28-10-2009 passed by the Sub-Judge-II Economic Offences, Dhanbad in CO. case No. 1 of 2009 by which the petitioner has been directed to remain present at the time of opening of the envelopes which contain authenticated documents.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the documents which were required to be authenticated by the petitioner have already been authenticated and the same having been sealed were handed over to the Investigating Officer of the Central Excise Department and now the Investigating Officer intends to get those envelopes opened for the purpose of investigation and therefore, prayer was made at the instance of the Investigating Officer to direct the petitioner to remain present at the time of opening of the envelops. Accordingly, the Court directed the petitioner to remain present. But the petitioner fails to understand as to why the Court has asked the petitioner to remain present. If the Investigating Officer intends to get those documents opened, he can open it in the Court, in absence of the petitioner who would be represented by his lawyer and the petitioner will have no objection if it is opened and is handed over to the Investigating Officer and therefore, any direction given to the petitioner to remain present is unwarranted.

However, learned counsel appearing for the Central Excise submits that so far his instruction is concerned, the petitioner may have been required for authenticating other document but this was never the issue before the Court rather the matter was confined to opening of the envelopes containing authenticated document.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any justification on the part of the Court to ask the petitioner to remain present at the time of opening of those envelopes. Accordingly, the order dated 23-9-2011 and also the order dated 28-10-2009 are hereby set aside.

In the result, this application is allowed.

However, it goes without saying that the petitioner shall be cooperating in the investigation. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.