Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1344 (JHR)

Gaurav Budhia v. Union of India

2009-10-28

R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. Through this writ application, extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, as enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been invoked on behalf of the petitioner for declaring his arrest made by the respondent no. 3 in purported exercise of power conferred under Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’) as unconstitutional and unlawful, as he in absence of any warrant of arrest, issued by the court of competent jurisdiction, is not competent to arrest a person for contravention of provision of Section 9 of the said Act, as the offences, under the said provision in terms of Section 9A of the said Act, are non-cognizable. At the same time, proceeding of a case bearing C.O. No. 1 of 2009, pending in the court of Sub-judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Economic offences), Dhanbad, has also been sought to be quashed, as neither the said proceeding has been initiated on a complaint, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor it has been initiated upon an F.I.R. 2. That apart, the petitioner through an Interlocutory Application bearing I.A. (Cr.) No. 1170 of 2009 has also sought to quash the order dated 18.5.2009, passed by the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad, whereby he directed the prosecution to take out printouts from the Laptop seized in presence of the parties and the petitioner was directed to authenticate the printouts to be taken out from the Laptop failing which his bail bond shall be cancelled. 3. Before adverting to the submissions made on behalf of the parties, the facts, which have given rise to this application, are that the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s Bihar Foundry and Castings Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Company’), engaged in manufacturing of Silico Manganese and other ancillary products. On 16th /17th October, 2008, the premises of M/s Bihar Foundry and Casting Limited and its other Units, being run as M/s Gautam Ferro Alloy, were searched by the team of the officials of Director General of Central Excise Intelligence, Jamshedpur and Raurkella. During the search operation, some documents were recovered, which were seized in presence of the petitioner who was all along present over there and his statement was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. During the search operation, some documents were recovered, which were seized in presence of the petitioner who was all along present over there and his statement was recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. In course of search, a Laptop was recovered from the factory premises, containing Datas in Tally-9, which was having seven files out of which three files were found corrupt. When those four files were opened, two were related to accounted sale of the said Company, but two files were not found to have been tallying with the statutory records, rather they appeared to have contained total actual accounted sale as well as non-accounted sale. Thereafter with the help of C.D. Rom printouts were taken out over which it was certified by the petitioner that those documents related to B.F.C.L. and as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner also made statement on seeing some files that in certain cases Central Excise Duty might have not been paid and, therefore, cheques of Rs. 2.5 Crores were given for its deposit as advance payment. However, it has been denied by the petitioner that he voluntarily gave the cheques, rather he was forced to give cheques of that amount. Further, case of the prosecution is that the petitioner also made statement that after examining the file, he may find the reason for the difference in sale value and other details which are there in those two files. After taking out the printouts from the Laptop, it was duly sealed for further investigation. The petitioner was summoned at several occasions, but he appeared on 14.11.2008 along with his Advocate and when the presence of his Advocate was disallowed, the petitioner sought adjournment of the proceeding so that he may move a court of law for redressal of his grievance. On the same day, one Satyanand Jha, friend of the petitioner, who had also been summoned, sent a FAX claiming ownership of the Laptop. 4. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a writ application before this Court bearing W.P. (T) No. 5522 of 2008, challenging the search and seizure operation, which was admitted, but the investigation was allowed to be carried out with the cooperation of the petitioner. 5. Thereafter, when the petitioner appeared along with his Advocate on 2.2.2009, they were asked to verify the remaining printouts which were to be taken from the Laptop. 5. Thereafter, when the petitioner appeared along with his Advocate on 2.2.2009, they were asked to verify the remaining printouts which were to be taken from the Laptop. After removing the seal, when the Laptop was turned on, the petitioner did not give his consent for taking printouts of the relevant Datas on the ground that the Laptop never belongs to him, rather according to him, it belongs to Satyanand Jha. Thereupon, the Laptop was resealed and finding prima facie evidence of evasion of duty by the petitioner and his hostile attitude towards the investigation and the act of influencing the witnesses, he was arrested with the approval of the Competent Authority. Thereafter, on getting transit remand from the Special Judge (Economic Offences), East Singhbhum, the petitioner was produced before the Sub-Judge-II-cum-Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad on 3.2.2009 on which date, offence report, which has been termed as preliminary complaint, was lodged which was registered as C.O. Case No. 1 of 2009 and the petitioner was sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, under the orders of the court, printouts of the files even of the corrupt files stored in the Laptop were taken out in presence of the petitioner as well as his representative, which were also sealed. From those printouts, it could be prima facie known about the illegal sale and, therefore, in order to carry out further investigation and to determine the actual amount of duty to be paid, it was necessary to open the sealed envelop before the court in presence of the petitioner as well as his counsel so that the same be authenticated and, therefore, an application to that effect was filed but before any order was passed, the petitioner filed the instant writ application before this Court, which was admitted for hearing, but in the meantime, order was passed to the effect that the documents, which were seized at the time of seizure, be authenticated by the petitioner on the next date fixed. Pursuant to that order, passed by this Court, an application was made for directing the petitioner to authenticate the documents. Accordingly, the court vide its order dated 18.5.2009 directed the petitioner to authenticate those documents, printouts of which have been taken out in the court in presence of both the parties. 6. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner by way of an Interlocutory Application challenged that order. 7. Mr. Accordingly, the court vide its order dated 18.5.2009 directed the petitioner to authenticate those documents, printouts of which have been taken out in the court in presence of both the parties. 6. Being aggrieved with that order, the petitioner by way of an Interlocutory Application challenged that order. 7. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per the prosecution, the petitioner was arrested by the Authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 13 of the said Act for contravention of the offences under Section 9 of the said Act but those offences under deeming clause of Section 9A of the said Act are non-cognizable offences and as such, the Authority under the Central Excise Act will have no jurisdiction to arrest a person without there being warrant of arrest and as such, the act of the officials of the Central Excise Department of arresting the petitioner without there being warrant of arrest is unconstitutional and illegal. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Km. Rajni and others Vs. Union of India and others (2003 Cri.L.J. 2062). 8. He would further submit that the phraseology, made in the application, upon which said complaint case bearing C.O. No. 1 of 2009 was initiated, is so contradictory that it is difficult for the petitioner to assume it to be a complaint or any other application, as at some places it has been stated that the petitioner has committed offences under Section 9 (1) (b) (bb) (bbb) read with Section 9AA of the Act and as such, cognizance of those offences be taken. However, some of the statements made in certain paragraphs would disclose that the investigation is still pending and in that event and also in view of the circular of the Department, as annexed under Annexure-6, the same could not be a complaint, as according to mandate of the circular, the prosecution should not be initiated before the claims put by the parties are adjudicated upon. Admittedly, no adjudication process has been initiated for alleged evasion of duty by the Company and under this situation, the proceeding, assumed to be a complaint, is fit to be set aside. 9. Admittedly, no adjudication process has been initiated for alleged evasion of duty by the Company and under this situation, the proceeding, assumed to be a complaint, is fit to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel further submits that on account of accusation made in the offence report/purported complaint, the petitioner would always be considered as an accused in terms of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and consequently, he cannot be compelled to give evidence against himself, but the learned Magistrate, by passing order dated 18.5.2009, directing the petitioner to authenticate printouts taken from the Laptop failing which his bail bond shall be cancelled, has put compulsion upon the petitioner to give evidence against himself, which is against the principle of protection of self incrimination, as enshrined under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the said order is also bad in view of the fact that the case is still under the stage of enquiry in terms of Section 14 of the said Act and as such, any judicial intervention in the matter, relating to inquiry of this case, would be unwarranted. 10. As against this, Mr. P.K. Prasad, learned Advocate General, submits that by virtue of power vested upon the Central Excise Officer under Section 13 of the said Act, Central Excise Officer, with the prior approval of the Commissioner of Central Excise is competent to arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to be liable to punishment under this Act or the Rules made thereunder and in exercise of such power, the Central Excise Officer in course of raid laid at the premises of the petitioner when prima facie found huge evasion of excise duty, arrested the petitioner and forwarded him before the Magistrate. 11. He would further submit that such power of arrest has never been limited by Section 18 of the said Act stipulating therein that all searches or arrests made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure which means that the arresting Authority needs to observe the formalities laid down in the relevant provisions of the Code in the matter of arrest and search. Thus, the provision, as enshrined under Section 18 of the said Act, never means that the competent officer can never arrest a person even he has reason to believe that the said person is liable to punishment under the Act in absence of warrant of arrest, as has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner keeping in view the provision as contained in Section 9A of the said Act which speaks about the offences under Section 9 of the said Act being non-cognizable. If such submission is accepted, the entire purpose of the Act would be frustrated, as even the competent officer having reason to believe that a person has committed offence under the said Act, he would not be able to arrest the petitioner in absence of warrant of arrest, which is never the intention of the legislature. Therefore, all the provisions need to be construed harmoniously so that none of the provisions of the Act be deemed to be redundant. 12. In this respect, it was further submitted that the power of excise officer to arrest a person in exercise of power conferred under Section 13 of the said Act appears to be absolute which power never gets curtailed by the provision, as contained in Section 9A of the said Act and as such, any embargo of arresting a person is not upon the excise officer, rather that relates to any other person including the police officer who would be arresting a person accused of committing an offence under the Central Excise Act. Same proposition has been laid down by the Punjab & Hariyana High Court in a case of Sunil Gupta Vs. Union of India { 2000 (118) E.L.T. 8 (P & H). Thus, it was submitted that the arrest of the petitioner by the Central Excise Officer never appears to be unconstitutional or illegal. It was further submitted that though certain incontradictory statements have been made in the complaint petition, but from those statements, basic thing i.e. substance which emerges is that the Central Excise Officer having reason to believe that the petitioner has committed offence under the Central Excise Act has forwarded him before the Magistrate to whom a complaint, which can be taken to be an offence report, was lodged making certain statements indicating therein that the matter is still under investigation. Once the petitioner was forwarded before the Magistrate in connection with the commission of an offence under the Excise Act, the Magistrate does have every power to remand the petitioner in judicial custody. Subsequently, whatever orders were passed by the Magistrate, it was in aid of investigation/inquiry and hence, those orders cannot be said to be illegal. 13. Thus, by referring to the provisions of the said Act, learned counsel for the petitioner made his point that the Central Excise Officer does not have power to arrest a person without there being warrant of arrest, whereas according to learned counsel for the respondents, though there appears to be manifest contradiction but that never effects the power of the Central Excise Officer to arrest if the provision of the Act is construed harmoniously. At this stage, as the matter relating to construction of the provision has arisen, I would refer to passage from the Maxwell of Statutes (10th Edition) at Page-229 which read as under:- “Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity, hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the structure of the sentence………… where the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman’s unskillfullness or ignorance of the law except in a case of necessity or the absolute intractability of the language used. Keeping in mind the said principles the courts presumably at number of occasions have held that normally the courts should be slow to pronounce the legislature to have been mistaken in its constantly manifested opinion upon a matter resting wholly within its will and take its plain ordinary grammatical meaning of the words of the enactment as affording the best guide, but to winch up the legislative intent, it is permissible for the courts to take into account of the ostensible purpose and object and the real legislative intent. Otherwise a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application of the legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose and object will render the legislature inane.” 14. Otherwise a bare mechanical interpretation of the words and application of the legislative intent devoid of concept of purpose and object will render the legislature inane.” 14. Keeping in view the said principle and also the cardinal principle of law that every law is designed to further ends of justice but not to frustrate on the mere technicalities, I will be dealing with the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties in the background of the principles of statutory interpretation and of the purpose and the spirit of the concerned Act as enshrined from there intendment. 15. The main purpose of the Act is to levy and collect excise duty for which the Central Excise Officers have been appointed. In order that they may carry out their duties in this behalf, powers have been conferred on them to see that the duty is not evaded and the persons guilty of evasion of duty are brought to book. Section 9 of the said Act provides for punishment for contravention of any of the provisions of a notification issued under Section 6 or Section 8 of the said Act or Rules made under clause III of Section 37(2) of the said Act, for evading the payment of any duty payable under the Act or for failing to supply any information which is required by the rules. The maximum punishment as stipulated under the Act is seven years. Section 9A of the said Act is a deeming clause, which stipulates that the offence under the Act would be non-cognizable. Section 13 of the said Act lays down that any Central Excise Officer, duly empowered by the Central Government, in this behalf, may arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to be liable to punishment under this Act. Section 18 of the said Act lays down that all searches made under this Act or any rules made thereunder and all arrests made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code. Section 18 of the said Act lays down that all searches made under this Act or any rules made thereunder and all arrests made under this Act shall be carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, relating respectively to searches and arrests made under that Code. Section 19 of the said Act lays down that every person arrested under this Act shall be forwarded without delay to the nearest Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate, or, if there is no such Central Excise Officer within a reasonable distance, to the Officer In-charge of the nearest police station. Then Section 21 of the said Act, which will have much bearing on the issue involved, needs to be taken notice of extensively which reads as follows:- “ (1) When any person is forwarded under section 19 to a Central Excise Officer empowered to send persons so arrested to a Magistrate, the Central Excise Officer shall proceed to enquire into the charge against him. (2) For this purpose the Central Excise officer may exercise the same powers and shall be subject to the same provisions as the Officer-in-Charge of a police station may exercise and is subject to under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 when investigating a cognizable case : Provided--- .(a) if the Central Excise Officer is of opinion that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall either admit him to bail to appear before a Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or forward him in custody to such Magistrate; .(b) if it appears to the Central Excise Officer that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion against the accused person, he shall release the accused person on his executing a bond, with or without sureties as the Central Excise Officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, and shall make a full report of all the particulars of the case to his official superior.” 16. These sections clearly show that the powers of arrest and search conferred upon the Central Excise Officer are in support of the main function of collection/levy of duty on exercisable goods. These sections clearly show that the powers of arrest and search conferred upon the Central Excise Officer are in support of the main function of collection/levy of duty on exercisable goods. Significantly, it be noted that apart from the Central Excise Officer who has been empowered under Section 13 to arrest a person, other person seems to have also been empowered under Section 19 to arrest a person but that person needs to forward the person arrested before the Central Excise Officer empowered to send person so arrested to a Magistrate and if such Central Excise Officer is not available within the vicinity to the Officer-In-charge of the nearest police station. Thereupon, the Officer-In-charge of police station has been enjoined with an obligation under Section 20 either to admit him on bail to appear before the Magistrate or in default forward him in custody to such Magistrate. Further, it appears that if a person arrested under Section 19 is forwarded before the Central Excise Officer, he in terms of Section 21(2) shall inquire into the matter by exercising all the powers which the officer In-charge of the police station does have in the matter of investigation of a cognizable case and if the Central Excise Officer finds sufficient evidence, he shall either admit him on bail to appear before the Magistrate or to forward him in custody to such Magistrate. 17. Thus, it would be significant to note that if a person is arrested by any other person than the Central Excise Officer, the person arrested needs to be forwarded either before the Central Excise Officer or the police officer and if the person arrested is forwarded to the Central Excise Officer, he will have in course of inquiry all the powers which the Officer-In-charge does have in the matter of investigation of a cognizable offence. Obviously, he will have power to detain that person without any warrant. Therefore, it would be quite unreasonable to hold that when the Central Excise Officer himself finds a person prima facie to be liable to punishment, he cannot arrest that person without there being warrant of arrest on account of the provision as enshrined in Section 19 of the Central Excise Act. Therefore, it would be quite unreasonable to hold that when the Central Excise Officer himself finds a person prima facie to be liable to punishment, he cannot arrest that person without there being warrant of arrest on account of the provision as enshrined in Section 19 of the Central Excise Act. This could not have been the intention of the legislature to treat the same offence as cognizable offence in one situation and in other situation, it be treated as non-cognizable offence so far it relates to arrest of a person. Thus, the logical conclusion would be that restriction, if any, on the matter of arrest on account of offences being non-cognizable is there, that never seems to have been imposed upon the Central Excise Officer rather it is upon other person including the police officer and that mandate of the legislature is not without any purpose rather it is purposeful as a tool for the safeguard so that the person may not be harassed unnecessarily by other than Central Excise Officer who is not expected to be conversant with the provisions of law relating to excise as that of Central Excise Officer. Such intend of the legislature gets reflected from the provision stipulating therein that whenever a person-accused is forwarded before the police, the police has no other alternative but to grant him bail and in case of default of bail, person needs to be forwarded before the Magistrate. 18. Thus, the intend of the legislature is never to put any restriction on the power of the Central Excise Officer except what is there under Section 13 of the said Act. So far as provision under Section 18 of the said Act is concerned, that is related to procedure to be adopted in the matter of arrests and searches as is there in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, that is confined only with respect to procedure to be adopted in the matter of arrests and searches and it never undermines or denudes the power of arrest as conferred under Section 13 of the said Act upon the Central Excise Officer. This proposition has also been laid down by the Punjab & Hariyana High Court in a case of Sunil Gupta (supra), whereas the decision rendered in a case of Km. Rajni and others Vs. This proposition has also been laid down by the Punjab & Hariyana High Court in a case of Sunil Gupta (supra), whereas the decision rendered in a case of Km. Rajni and others Vs. Union of India and others (2003 Cri.L.J. 2062) (supra) holding therein that the Authority working under a Special Act such as Central Excise Act, 1944 cannot override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as regards the arrest or filing of the complaint is in the context of altogether different facts wherein when a raid was conducted at the premises of a Company, three persons were arrested who made statements against the persons who were the petitioners in that case about their culpability and that led the petitioners to move before the High Court for a direction to the Authority not to arrest and the court in the backdrop of the fact that neither there is any complaint nor there is any FIR instituted by the Excise Authority against the petitioner held so. However, at the same time, the court observed as under:- “Coming to the conclusion from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the authorities have no power under the Excise Act to arrest any-body except in the cases as prescribed under Section 13 of the said Act as enumerated in Section 13(2) of the said Act. On completion of the inquiry, they have also power to file a complaint and pray before the court for action in accordance with law”. Thus, there has been no hesitation in holding that the Central Excise Officer does have power in terms of Section 13 of the said Act to arrest a person and that power has never been subjected to any other provision of the Act. 19. Coming to the other point, it be stated that the proceeding pending before the Special Judge, Economic Offences as C.O. No. 1 of 2009 has been sought to be quashed on the ground that any prosecution by way of complaint can not legitimately be launched while the matter is still under investigation/enquiry and as such, continuation of such proceeding would amount abuse of the process of law. 20. 20. The other point taken in this respect is that there has been executive instruction as contained in Annexure-6 which stipulates that the prosecution is not warranted to be initiated until the matter is adjudicated before the Authority but ignoring the said instruction complaint has been lodged and as such, under both counts, the proceeding needs to be quashed. 21. From perusal of the application, on which said case has been instituted, one may get confused as to whether it is complaint petition or an offence report which has been terms as preliminary complaint but from the substance, it does appear that in fact, it is an offence report as the matter is still under investigation. It has been stated in the said application that the prosecution is normally launched after adjudication process is completed. Thus, one can say that no complaint has been filed in terms of Section 200 Cr.P.C. as investigation/enquiry on the allegation is still going on and that adjudicating process is still to be completed. In that view of the matter, I do not find any substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner. 22. Moreover, I may refer to a case of Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and another (A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 1775) where on amongst other questions, one of the questions fell for consideration as to whether the detention authorizes by the Magistrate either to judicial custody or otherwise to a person forwarded under Section 35(2) of the FERA and Section 104(2) of the Customs Act becomes ab initio void and illegal. 23. I may indicate that Section 35(2) of the FERA and Section 104(1) of the Customs Act are similar to that of Section 19 of the Central Excise Act. Section 35(2) of the FERA and Section 104(2) of the Customs Act speak about the forwarding of the accused before the Magistrate. 24. 23. I may indicate that Section 35(2) of the FERA and Section 104(1) of the Customs Act are similar to that of Section 19 of the Central Excise Act. Section 35(2) of the FERA and Section 104(2) of the Customs Act speak about the forwarding of the accused before the Magistrate. 24. The Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking into consideration several provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure did hold that the inevitable consequence that follows is that ‘any person is arrested’ occurring in the first limb of Section 167(1) of the Code takes within its ambit ‘every person arrested’ under Section 35 of FERA or Section 104 of the Customs Act also as the case may be and the ‘person arrested’ can be detained by the Magistrate in exercise of his power under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words, the ‘person arrested’ under FERA or Customs Act is assimilated with the characteristics of an ‘accused’ within the range of Section 167(1) and as such liable to be detained under Section 167(2) by a Magistrate when produced before the him. 25. Thus, for the reasons, discussed above, any submission with respect to proceeding being illegal is devoid of any merit. 26. Lastly, the order, passed on 18.5.2009, has been challenged on the ground that under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India one cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself but learned court below ignoring the protection guaranteed under the aforesaid provision of the Constitution of India has passed the order directing the petitioner to authenticate the documents failing which his bail bond would be cancelled. 27. This submission requires consideration in the backdrop of the facts that when raid was laid in the premises of the factory on 16th/17th October, 2008, a Laptop was seized and then printouts of some of the files stored in the Laptop were taken which was authenticated by the petitioner. However, subsequently when the printouts of other files were taken pursuant to order of the court in presence of the parties, the petitioner refused to authenticate those documents and now the said order has been challenged on the ground that such authentication would amount to self-incrimination which is prohibited under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, but the question is as to whether such authentication would be self-incriminatory or not. 28. 28. I have already noticed the fact that the printouts of certain files were taken out under the order of the court in presence of the parties which only requires to be authenticated in order to avoid further complication. Therefore, whatever information whether it is self-incriminating or not is there in the printouts from before and the petitioner has never been asked to confirm the said information, rather he has simply been asked to authenticate those documents. In that situation, simple authentication of the documents by the petitioner would not amount as self-incriminatory statement and if it is not self-incriminatory, the petitioner would not enjoy the protection as guaranteed under the Constitution. At this stage, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of State of Bombay Vs. Kathi Kalu Oghad (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1808), wherein the court has laid down: “In order that a testimony by an accused person may be said to have been self-incriminatory the compulsion of which comes within the prohibition of the Constitutional provision, it must be of such a character that by itself it should have the tendency of incriminating the accused, if not, also of actually doing so. In other words, it should be a statement which makes the case against the accused person at least probable, considered by itself”. 29. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in this submission also. However, that part of the order stating therein that bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled on account of non-observance of the direction contained therein is not sustainable in law as consequence of nonobservance of the direction has been contemplated under Section 14 of the said Act itself and as such, that part of the order dated 18.5.2009 where it has been stated that the bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled is hereby quashed. 30. Thus, respondent no. 3 never appears to have acted without jurisdiction in the matter of arrest of the petitioner nor the proceeding pending before the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad including the order dated 18.5.2009 is bad except that part of the order wherein it has been stated that bail bond of the petitioner shall be cancelled on account of nonobservance of direction contained therein which part of the order stands quashed. 31. 31. In the result, this application is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.