Delhi High Court Denies Relief To Arms Dealer Sanjay Bhandari In Challenge To Fugitive Economic Offender Notice

A single judge Justice Dinesh Kumar Sharma remarked that Bhandari did not come to the Court with clean hands as he did not disclose his address in the United Kingdom to the ED. Noting Bhandari was absconding and did not disclose his current whereabouts, the Court observed that exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C could only be granted to individuals who approach the court with clean hands.

It stated that instead of filing a petition under Section 484 CrPC, the petitioner could have appeared before the Special Judge as provided under Section 11 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 (FEO Act) and could have filed the reply.

The Court remarked, “It may again be repeated event at the cost of brevity that discretionary jurisdiction can be invoked only in the sparing circumstances. It has also kept in mind that the petitioner seems to be fighting a proxy war as he has chosen not to give his address and complete particulars in the petition.”

Bhandari was challenging the Miscellaneous Application of ED filed under Section 4, 10 and 12 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act before the Special Court and the summoning order issued by the Special Court.

For context, Section 4 of FEO Act provides if an officer has reason to believe that any individual is a fugitive economic offender, they can file an application before the Special Court that such individual be declared as a fugitive economic offender.

Section 10 of FEO provides that after an application under Section 4 has duly been filed, the Special Court shall issue a notice to an individual who is alleged to be a fugitive economic offender. Section 12 provides procedure after an individual is declared as a fugitive economic offender.

Bhandari contended that the Special Court issued the notice under Section 10 mechanically without ascertaining whether the application under Section 4 was 'duly filed'.

The Court observed that at the time of issuing the summons, the Special Judge has to examine the procedural aspects involved in issuing summons and the relevant precedents that outline the limits and boundaries of such jurisdiction.

Here, the Court noted that the complainant specifically stated that the accused was the owner of benami properties and was involved in the commission of the scheduled offence.

It noted that proceeds of crime exceeded Rs. 100 crores and Non-Bailable Warrants was issued against Bhandari, thus falling within the scope of a fugitive economic offender.

The Court further noted that the jurisdiction exercised by a Special Court under the FEO Act is distinct from the summoning of an accused for other criminal offences.

It observed, “The Fugitive Economic Offenders Act, 2018 is a special statute enacted for a specific purpose, and the legislature, in its wisdom, has provided that upon filing a complaint application in accordance with the aforementioned Rules, the Special Court shall issue a notice. The argument regarding “duly filed” is liable to be rejected, as the concept of “duly filed” must be understood in accordance with the above-said Rules.”

The Court thus dismissed the petition.

Case title: Sanjay Bhandari vs. Directorate of Enforcement (CRL.M.C. 1002/2020, CRL.M.A. 4037/2020)