- (1.) Heard Mr. Kapil Sibal for the applicant, Mr. Arvind Datar, learned Counsel for S.E.B.I., Ms. Pinky Anand, learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. In our order dated 18th March, 2014, after hearing learned Counsel, we passed the following order: "The applicant/Respondent No. 2-SEBI prays for appropriate orders/directions for ensuring compliance of our order 12.3.2013 passed in C.A. No. 6572 of 2004. Pursuant to our orders in the said appeal, Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as the CBI) stated to have attached the cash deposits made by the Appellants in different banks in the value of Rs. 79,91,79,324.71 somewhere in the month of February, 2014. The additional affidavit filed by the Appellants discloses that the CBI has also attached the immovable properties which were part of the so-called Collective Investment Scheme promoted by the Appellants and an indicative list of 25 such properties have also been disclosed in the said additional affidavit. While hearing learned Counsel for the respective parties it was felt that the implementation of our order dated 12.3.2013 in the Civil Appeal can be worked out by disposing of the immovable properties and the money collected from such disposal along with the cash deposits available in the Banks can be disbursed to the investors and thereby the judgment can be implemented. It was also suggested that as a large number of investors, numbering several thousands are existing and the properties are also large in number, it is preferable that the said exercise of disposal of the properties and disbursement will have to be entrusted to some Special Committee consisting of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or the High Court to be assisted by a retired District Judge of his/her choice. However, since the properties were attached by the CBI for the purpose of proceeding with the prosecution against the Appellants, as directed in our judgment dated 12.3.2013 passed in the Civil Appeal, the response of the CBI as to in what manner its interest can be protected for the purpose of proceeding with the prosecution while lifting the attachment made by the CBI. In that perspective, in our order dated 11.3.2015, we impleaded CBI also as a party Respondent to enable this Court to pass appropriate orders in this application in the presence of the CBI. Pursuant to the said order, Mr. B.V. Balram Das, learned Counsel, seeks to appear for CBI. We direct CBI to file its response taking into account the above course of action which this Court wants to adopt for the implementation of our judgment dated 12.3.2013. We also direct Respondent No. 2/S.E.B.I., to submit its proposals as to the safeguards or appropriate directions to be issued while appointing a Special Committee for carrying out the exercise of disposal of the properties and the disbursement to be ultimately effected to the investors, both from out of the funds collected from the sale of the immovable properties as well as the amounts lying in various bank accounts of the Appellants. Such proposal may be submitted by Respondent No. 2/S.E.B.I. by furnishing a copy in advance to the Appellants as well as Union of India. The Appellants are also directed to file their response to the proposal of Respondent No. 2/S.E.B.I. before the next hearing date."
(2.) Pursuant to our above order an affidavit dated 26th March, 2015 has been filed by the Superintendent of Police, CBI, wherein it has been pointed out as under in paragraph 11: "That CBI has seized papers (including some photocopies) of 348 properties of PGF and more than 14000 properties of PACL and others, all of which may not be title deeds. In the above affidavit dated 22.12.2014, the Appellant has provided indicative list of 25 properties, said to be attached by CBI. In this regard, it is submitted that out of indicative list of 25 properties also, original title documents only in respect of 7 properties viz. Sl. No. 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 & 25 have been seized by CBI, while papers of 7 properties viz. SL. No. 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 14 & 22 are "Agreement To Sell" only and papers of 3 properties viz. SL. No. 11, 12 & 23 are Xerox copy only. Papers of remaining 8 of the said 25 properties do not figure in the list of papers seized by CBI. Similar discrepancies may be expected in remaining property papers also."
(3.) It is also prayed on behalf of the CBI that permission to part with the papers of Bank instruments as well as the properties be accorded to CBI with liberty to use photocopies of these documents (secondary evidence) as primary evidence in all Court related matters. There is a further prayer that the Appellants be directed to submit unequivocal-undertaking in these proceedings that they will not oppose the use of those photocopies of the documents as primary evidence by CBI in any of the proceedings pending as well as to be lodged.;