Ram Kotumal Issrani Vs Directorate of Enforcement (Bombay High Court)
In a most historic move, the Bombay High Court which is one of the oldest and so also one of the most prestigious High Courts in India in a most laudable, learned, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Ram Issrani vs Enforcement Directorate & Ors in Criminal Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 15417 of 2023 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2024:BHC-AS:17238-DB that was reserved on March 6, 2024 and then finally pronounced on April 15, 2024 has minced just no words in making it indubitably clear that Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot deprive person of right to sleep by recording statements at unearthly hours. We thus see that the Bombay High Court took strong exception to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) recording statements of witnesses and accused at unearthly hours, given that it resulted in deprivation of a person’s sleep. In the fitness of things, the Bench of Bombay High Court comprising of Hon’ble Ms Justice Revati Mohite Dere and Hon’ble Ms Justice Revati Mohite Dere directed the central agency to issue a circular or direction regarding timings for recording statements when summons are issued for interrogation.
It cannot be lost on us that the Bombay High Court in this leading case most unambiguously observed that, “Recording of statement, at unearthly hours, definitely results in deprivation of a person’s sleep, a basic human right of an individual. We disapprove this practice. Thus, we deem it appropriate to direct the ED to issue a circular/directions, as to the timings, for recording of statements, when summons under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) are issued.” We need to note that the remarks came in a petition that had been filed by a 64 year old businessman, Ram Issrani who had accused the ED of illegally arresting him in an alleged bank fraud case. More precisely, the Bombay High Court reiterated that an investigation by ED officers stood on a different footing from an investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as it was deemed to be a judicial proceeding. In view of this, the Court observed that the statement recording was required to happen during ‘earthly hours’.
