School Jobs for Cash Scam: Calcutta High Court asks ED to give 48 hours notice before summoning Abhishek Banerjee

In a temporary respite for Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader Abhishek Banerjee, the Calcutta High Court recently ordered the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to give a a prior notice of 48 hours before summoning Banerjee in relation to the school jobs for cash scam [Abhishek Banerjee vs Ramesh Malik]..The Court also directed that ED has to first examine the material before it and only if it thinks that Banerjee's personal appearance is necessary, it should issue summons to him. The order was passed by a division bench of Justices Soumen Sen and Uday Kumar after noting the submission by Banerjee counsel that every time the TMC leader plans to participate in his political party's rally, he is served with summons by ED."The ED shall examine the material with it and in the event it is of the opinion that the presence of the applicant is necessary, shall issue summons for appearance of the applicant by giving him a notice of 48 hours in advance. It is needless to mention that ED in taking such decision shall act fairly, impartially and shall not be swayed by any observations made by the single-judge," the judges observed in the order passed on October 5. The bench further noted the submission that the single-judge bench of Justice Amrita Sinha, which is seized of the school jobs for cash scam case, had been making certain oral observations against Banerjee and others involved in the litigation. "We like to observe that the single-judge in proceeding with the matter shall keep in mind that in monitoring the probe, no adverse remark shall be made against any of the persons against whom the investigation is pending as it is likely to prejudice his rights in the event any proceeding is ultimately initiated upon conclusion of the investigation," the bench said. The endeavour of the Court shall be to ensure a fair, speedy, impartial and time-bound investigation, the bench made it clear. "It is to be remembered that any adverse observation against any of the persons summoned could be prejudicial to the interest of the said person and is likely to influence the investigation and the trial. The endeavour would be to ensure that the investigating agency gather and collate all required and relevant informations and file its final report following the procedure prescribed in law with regard to the outcome of the investigation," the Court said. However, in the instant case, Justice Sinha has not transgressed the jurisdiction, the bench clarified. .The Court was hearing a plea filed by Banerjee challenging orders passed by Justice Sinha on September 28 and also her oral observations made during the hearings on September 25, 27 and 28 against the ED and also Banerjee. Notably, the judge had also removed the head of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) of the ED saying he lacked confidence after he failed to give satisfactory answers to the court's queries on the insufficient information with regards to the assets of Banerjee. The single-judge had expressed shock to note that Banerjee's assets included only three insurance policies. It had also pinned holes in the investigation of the ED in the case. .After hearing the contentions, the division bench observed that investigation in the instant case was necessary in view enormity of questionable cash transactions in education recruitment scam. "The magnitude of the scam is unfathomable. A fair investigation can only restore trust and faith in the system and it should be the endeavor of all to ensure that the culprits are brought to book and corrupts are punished," the bench observed. .The bench noted that the report filed by the ED was unsatisfactory because of unavailability of the information on the date of the report due to non-supply of the said documents."The court in monitoring the probe of an agency appointed by it can always enquire from the agency if all the information have been received as ultimately the final decision of the ED has to be based on the evidence collected. It becomes obvious that the report was inadequate with regard to essential matters," the bench said.However, the Court should not act as a prosecutor and should be cautious and careful in discussing matters forming subject matter of investigation as any observation by the court in relation to investigation might prejudice the person against whom the summon is issued, the bench underscored. The bench further opined that Banerjee is also entitled to know the outcome of the investigation and can legitimately expect a quick conclusion of the investigation. .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. .[Read Order]