The Delhi High Court recently set aside the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)'s order directing a Bentley dealer in India to furnish a demand draft of ₹50 lakh to the central agency [Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd Vs Central Bureau of Investigation].
A company Samruddha Jeevan Foods had ordered a ‘Bentley Mulsanne’ car from Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd , an authorised dealer of Bentley Motors, in India, and had given ₹50 lakh deposit as advance payment. When Samruddha defaulted on the balance amount, Bentley forfeited the ₹50 lakh.
CBI, while investigating the affairs of Samruddha in a case unrelated to the car manufacturer or the dealer, found the transaction and directed Exclusive Motors to produce a ₹50-lakh demand draft under Section 91 ((summons to produce document) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna considered whether a ‘demand draft’ would come within the definition of a ‘document’ under Section 91 CrPC.
It noted that there are established means and procedures in place to secure or attach the "suspected proceeds of crime" but the direction to prepare a demand draft of the amount would neither come within the definition of document or "other thing", the production of which can be sought under Section 91 CrPC.
In the communication to Exclusive Motors, CBI had said,
“You are well aware that the amount transferred to M/s Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. is evidently out of the proceeds of crime. You are therefore required to provide the said amount of Rs. 50 lakhs received by M/s Exclusive Motors Pvt. Ltd. from M/s Samruddha Jeevan Foods India Limited, for seizure through demand draft favouring “HOB, CBI, EO-VII, Bhubaneswar immediately.”
In response to the plea challenging the order before the High Court, the CBI said the ₹50 lakh amount was received by Samruddha Jeevan Foods by deceiving the public.
However, the Court noted that CBI’s order was in the nature of a recovery and not production of documents for investigation or trial as envisaged under CrPC.
“The impugned Order does not in any way, relate to a document or other thing, which is in existence on the date when the Order is passed; rather it specifically ordered that the Petitioner the get the draft made in favour of “HOB, CBI, EO-VII, Bhubaneswar”, thus, positing that it does not exist when it is ordered to be produced in an Order passed under Section 91,” the Court stated.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the CBI order.
Advocate Karan Bharihok appeared for Exclusive Motors.
Standing Counsel Ripudaman Bhardwaj appeared for Union government.
Special Public Prosecutor Anubha Bhardwaj and Advocate Mehak Arora appeared for CBI.
[Read Judgment]