T.K. Chatterjee, J. - (1.) ON or about 4th of May, 1993, in the residence of Sri Pawan Kumar Didwani, who is the writ petitioner, some officers from the Enforcement Department came and conducted a search. After search they took the writ petitioner along with them to the office of the Enforcement Directorate at about 9.30 P.M. on 4th of May, 1993. The respondent No. 5, Sri Samir Mukherjee, interrogated the writ petitioner on 4th of May, 1993. According to the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was forced to write a statement as per the dictate of the officers of the Enforcement Directorate, particularly, Sri Samir Mukherjee. According to the writ petitioner, the said statement was obtained from the writ petitioner at night under duress, threat and physical assault and it was not his voluntary statement and physical torture on the writ petitioner continued throughout the night of 4th of May, 1993 which resulted in injuries on his body and on 5th of May, 1993 the writ petitioner was produced before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta making allegations that the writ petitioner had violated the provisions of Section 9(1)(d) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "FERA"). A bail petition was moved before that Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on behalf of the writ petitioner on the same day mainly on the ground that the writ petitioner required immediate medical assistance and should be admitted in a nursing home and that the statements taken from him were obtained by the respondents under duress, threat and assault, and that he was falsely implicated in the case. The learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta refused to release the writ petitioner on bail. On 6th of May, 1993 an application for bail was moved on behalf of the writ petitioner in this Court. On the said application for bail, a Division Bench of this Court directed the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to forward a medical report regarding the injuries sustained by the writ petitioner to them on 7th of May, 1993. On 7th of May, 1993 the medical report was submitted on behalf of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. After going through the medical report, the Division Bench, on 7th of May, 1993, only directed that the writ petitioner be kept in the jail hospital and necessary medical attention be provided to him. The Division Bench, therefore, on 7th of May, 1993, refused to release the writ petitioner on bail even after going through the medical report of the writ petitioner. In terms of the direction made by the Division Bench, the writ petitioner was shifted to the jail hospital. Subsequently, on being complained of acute chest pain, the writ petitioner was, thereafter, removed to SSKM Hospital under police protection. According to the writ petitioner, the Cardiology Department of SSKM Hospital was of the view that the writ petitioner had suffered a mio -cardiac infraction due to prolonged brutal physical assault coupled with most menacing intimidation and psychological torture on the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner, thereafter, filed another application for his release on bail before a Division Bench of this Court. This time, by an order dated 10th of May, 1993, the Division Bench released the writ petitioner on bail mainly on the ground that there could not be any apprehension of the writ petitioner's absconding or his jumping the bail. Subsequently, at the instance of Enforcement Directorate, an application for cancellation of bail had been filed before the Division Bench which is, I am informed, still pending. It is alleged in the application for cancellation of bail that the claim of suffering from mio -cardiac infraction was found to be absolutely false as per report dated 29th May, 1993 of the doctor who had examined him in SSKM Hospital. Subsequent to this, the writ petitioner, made an application before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta for retraction of his statements as they were obtained by the respondents from him under duress, threat and physical assault. On 20th May, 1993, the writ petitioner filed a petition for starting a criminal proceedings under Sections 330, 331, 234, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code against Sri Samir Mukherjee, Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta. Sri Samir Mukherjee, however, made an application for quashing the said criminal proceeding and on rejection, Sri Mukherjee has moved a criminal revisional application in this Court and has obtained an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in the said case which is now pending. The respondents have since issued show cause notice to the writ petitioner with regard to the said matter which has been the subject matter of the Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2200 of 1993 arising out of the case started against the writ petitioner for alleged violation of Section 9(1)(d) under the FERA.
(2.) THE grounds alleged by the writ petitioner in this writ petition for moving the writ Court are that the officers of the respondents, and in particular, Sri Samir Mukherjee, against whom the writ petitioner has filed a criminal case praying for issuance of process under Sections 324, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of the order of rejection, passed on the application filed by the respondent No. 5 for quashing the said case, have hatched up a conspiracy to teach the writ petitioner a lesson by falsely implicating the writ petitioner in various cases and that the writ petitioner has been threatened by the officers of the Enforcement Directorate that they would further implicate the writ petitioner in other false cases and thereby put the writ petitioner behind the bar. It has also been alleged in paragraphs 21 and 23 of the writ petition that the officers of the respondents tried to meet the writ petitioner either in his residence or in his office on different dates but since the writ petitioner was not available, they could not meet him. A grievance has also been put forward by the writ petitioner against the officers of the Enforcement Directorate that since the writ petitioner has been thoroughly examined in the above referred case and in view of the fact that the respondents have already issued show cause notice with regard to the said case, there was no reason for the officers of the respondents to visit the office and the residence of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has also alleged that by wrongfully and illegally threatening the writ petitioner to implicate him in false cases, the respondents are seeking to deprive the writ petitioner of his personal liberty and are thus trying to violate the fundamental right of the writ petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances stated hereinabove, this writ application was moved by the writ petitioner for a direction upon the respondents (i) not to implicate the writ petitioner in any case under FERA; (ii) not to arrest or detain the writ petitioner without any basis; and (in) not to take any further or other coercive step against the writ petitioner and/or giving threat of arrest and/or detention in connection with false cases under the FERA. An order of injunction was also prayed for restraining the respondents from implicating the writ petitioner falsely in any case under the FERA or from arresting or detaining the writ petitioner and from giving threat of arrest or detention in any case in any manner whatsoever without the leave of this Court.
(3.) A .N. Ray, J. on 4th of January, 1994 passed the following interim under: Under these circumstances, the principal officer, being respondent No. 5, as well as all the other respondents are restrained from effecting any arrest of the writ petitioner again or taking any step for removing him from his residence or in any manner interfere with his free travelling anywhere within the country without his obtaining leave of this Court.;