ORDER Both the Criminal petitions (Criminal Petition Nos. 3805 and 3828 of 2009) are directed against the order of the XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, dated 08-06-2009 in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1962 of 2009 in Crime No. 04(S) of2009. 2. The Enforcement Directorate Government of India represented by its Assistant Direct or filed Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1962 of 2009, purportedly under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "the Code") for permission to record the statements of the accused in Crime No.04(S) of 2009. The Enforcement Directorate is stated to be an Investigating Agency of Government of India dealing with the offences punishable under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "the Act") and the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 triable by Special Courts constituted under the enactments. It was claimed that the first information report No. 02 of 2009, dated 09-01-2009, registered by C.I.D. police station, discloses that Mis. Sat yam Computer Services Limited, its Chairman and other Direct or caused loss to the de facto complainant on account of fudging of accounts and manipulation of records showing incorrect and inflated figures in the balance-sheet by the Chairman, the Managing Director and other Directors, which are certified by the Auditors. The Central Bureau of Investigation was stated to have subsequently taken up investigation and the accused are in judicial custody. It was claimed that the details collected from the Registrar of Companies and C.I.D. revealed fudging of books of account and other records by the Company, it Chairman, Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer and other Directors who diverted funds and purchased a lot of immovable properties in and around Hyderabad in the names of them selves, their family members, relatives and other benami names. While the properties are being identified, the preliminary inquiry, the examination of documents and the reports that appeared in newspapers were claimed to have shows a prima facie case against the accused under Section 3 of the Act and under Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, which requires further investigation in accordance with the said Acts and the Rules framed there under. Accordingly, ECIR NO.1 IHNO/2009/209 (Enforcement Case Information Report) was filed before the Courts. Accordingly, ECIR NO.1 IHNO/2009/209 (Enforcement Case Information Report) was filed before the Courts. The Enforcement Directorate claimed to have conducted investigations, which revealed fudging of books of account by the accused showing inflated sales and profits to reflect higher share value and offloading of shares of Mis. Sat yam Computer Services Limited investing the proceeds in land and other immovable properties. The Chairman and the Managing Direct or transferred Rs. 2.78 crore shares to SRSR Holdings Private Limited, a front company for purchase of properties. The accused floated more than 300 companies and the proceeds of pledging of shares and dividends of Mis. Sat yam Computer Services Limited were used for purchase of immovable properties across the country. The Chairman was instrumental in showing non-existing fixed deposits to an extent of Rs. 3.30 crore in the balance-sheet, and the export invoices are apprehended to have been forged to show high and inflated export remittances. The Auditors conspired with the other accused and hence, the Enforcement Directorate sought for grant of custody of the Chairman, the Managing Director, Senior Vice President and two Chartered Accountants of M/s. Sat yam Computer Services Limited in the Jail Itself to enable recording of their statements under Section 50 of the Act. 3. The application, dated 30-03-2009 was opposed by the Chairman and the Managing Director denying committing the alleged offences and the allegations made against them. As they were in judicial custody since 10-01-2009 and as the prison is not a conducive place to record a statutory statement which can be used against them at a later stage and as they have no access to all the relevant records seized by different agencies, compelling them to give statements is against statutory rights and safe-guards. The claim that the proceeds of crime are in their hands, which are projected as untainted property, is unsubstantiated and all the allegations, even if assumed to be correct, do not make out the ingredients of Section 467 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I PC"), which alone would enable taking up of investigation under -the Act. The Assistant Director is not authorized under the Act to gather evidence or conduct investigation and he cannot maintain the petition. The Assistant Director is not authorized under the Act to gather evidence or conduct investigation and he cannot maintain the petition. There are no enabling provisions under the Act or the Code to permit recording of statements by the Assistant Director who cannot be equated with police and any such permission is against the principles of natural justice, as the Chairman and the Managing Director, without access to any records of the company, will not be in a position to support their statements with reference to their documents. The recording of statements will be an exercise in futility, more so in the constrained and stressful atmosphere prejudicing the Chairman and the managing Director. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1962 of 2009. 4. The XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad passed the impugned order noting the rival contentions and non-filing of any objections by other respondents except the Chairman and the Managing Director and the positive endorsement by the learned counsel for the Chartered Accountants stating no objection to the request. The arguments of the learned counsel were extracted reiterating the rival contentions and the objections were rejected firstly noting that no custody under Section 167 of the Code is being sought for by the Enforcement Directorate and the provisions of Section 167 of the Code need not be applied by the Court to grant permission to the Enforcement Directorate to record the statements of the accused in judicial custody in another case. The notification appointing the Assistant Director for the purposes of the Act was also noted and referring to Sections 167,267, 271, 270, 311-A, 330, 339, 336 and 337 of the Code and Rule 31 of the Criminal Rules of Practice, it was opined that the Magistrate can pass an order permitting the Investigating Agency to record the statements of the accused in Jail in another case to complete the investigation. Therefore, the petition was allowed permitting the Enforcement Directorate, represented by its Assistant Director to examine the Chairman, the Managing Director, Senior Vice President and the Chartered Accountants at the premises of the Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad and to record their statements from 09-06-2009 to 16-06-2009 in the presence of their counsel from 10.30 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on every day and the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad was consequentially directed to permit the same. 5. 5. The said order is challenged contending that there was no allegation of committal of a scheduled offence by the petitioners and the Enforcement Directorate failed to place reliance on any concrete evidence to show the possession of the proceeds of the crime with the petitioners and any projection of such assets as untainted property. Any sale of shares or raising loans by pledging shares is not a scheduled offence under the Act and even if the alleged fudging of books of account is true, it is not a scheduled offence. No ingredients of the offence under Section 467 IPC were alleged and no ingredients were made out to seek the custody of the accused under Section 167 of the Code. The enabling provision under Section 50 of the Act to appear in person or through an authorized representative was rendered nugatory by allowing the petition and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the petition filed by the Securities Exchange Board of India has no Precedential value and did not lay down any law. Hence, the petitioners sought for quashing of the impugned order, under Section 482 of the Code. 6. Sri SR. Ashok, learned senior counsel for the petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3805 of2009, Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 3828 of2009 and Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General representing the Enforcement Directorate represented by its Assistant Director in both the petitions, reiterated their respective contentions extensively, which will be referred to in due course. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be quashed? 8. Point: The Enforcement Case Information Report was stated to have been registered by the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate on 23-01-2009 against M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited, the Chairman, the Managing Director, the Chief Financial Officer and others with the source of information being C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh and newspaper reports. 8. Point: The Enforcement Case Information Report was stated to have been registered by the Assistant Director of the Enforcement Directorate on 23-01-2009 against M/s. Satyam Computer Services Limited, the Chairman, the Managing Director, the Chief Financial Officer and others with the source of information being C.I.D., Andhra Pradesh and newspaper reports. Fudging of company accounts and manipulation of records showing incorrect and inflated figures in the balance-sheet shown by the Chairman, the Managing Director and the Directors and certified by the Auditors, provided the basis for registration of the information claimed to be prima facie disclosing a case under Section 3 of the Act against the accused, which requires further investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under. The data collected from the Registrar of Companies and C.I. D. Hyderabad was stated to have revealed diversion of funds, purchase of lot of immovable properties and use of proceeds of crime for the same. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry and examination of documents and newspaper reports, the investigation was claimed to have been taken up for the said offence. 9. It was in pursuance of this Enforcement Case Information Report that the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 1962 of2009 was filed by the Enforcement Directorate represented by its Assistant Director in Crime No. 04(S) of 2009, purportedly under Section 167 of the Code, praying to grant custody of accused 1 to 5 to the petitioner in the Jail itself to enable recording of their statements under Section 50 of the Act, but the heading of the petition itself stated within brackets that it was for permission to record the statements of the accused. It is obvious from a close reading of all the contents of the petition together that what was sought for really by the Enforcement Directorate was access to accused 1 to 5 to enable it to record their statements under Section 50 of the Act, which request became necessary due to their being in the judicial custody of the Court which passed the impugned order. 10. It is true that Section 167 of the Code in sub-section (1) refers to the grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded. 10. It is true that Section 167 of the Code in sub-section (1) refers to the grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded. But the reference to the said grounds for believing was concerning the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation in connection with transmission of a person arrested and detained in custody to the nearest Judicial Magistrate, if the investigation cannot be completed within twenty-four hours. The reference to the grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, was not with reference to the Judicial Magistrate to whom the accused is forwarded under subsection (1). Sub-section (2) of Section 167 of the Code authorizing the Magistrate to detain the accused in custody, makes a reference to the existence of adequate grounds for extending the custody beyond fifteen days and assuming that the Magistrate also should have grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded before authorizing detention of an accused in custody or extending such custody, the basis for such satisfaction of the Magistrate will be the prima facie material placed before him by the Investigating Agency and at that stage, the Magistrate may not indulge in a detailed adjudication of the allegations of the Investigating Agency on merits. With that background, assuming that Section 167 of the Code has any relevance to the request made for enabling the Enforcement Directorate to record the statements of the accused, the Enforcement case information Report coupled with the contents of the petition cannot be said to be not disclosing any prima facie probability of the existence of an offence under the Act or the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 which was also relied on in the petition. 11. It is true as contended by Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel that Section 3 of the Act defining the 'offence of money-laundering', refers to any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property and Section 2(p) of the Act defines 'money laundering' as having the meaning assigned to it in Section 3. The 'proceeds of crime' was defined by Section 2(u) of the At as any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. The 'proceeds of crime' was defined by Section 2(u) of the At as any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property. It is true that out of the scheduled offences under the Act, Section 4671 PC, and not the other scheduled offences, appears to be applicable. Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel referred in detail to the ingredients of Section 4671PC, which, in his opinion, are not even remotely attracted on the allegations made against the accused. While the possibility of the accused being able to claim the allegations made against them to be not strictly falling within the offence of money-laundering, if confined to the Enforcement case Information Report alone, is not totally untenable, it should be remembered that the said report only indicates the outlines of the circumstances under which the investigation was taken up against the accused and it was not an exhaustive reproduction of the details collected from the Registrar of Companies, C.I.D. Hyderabad and the newspaper reports or through the preliminary inquiry and examination of documents. While it is well settled that the first information report need not be an encyclopaedia of all the events and circumstances, the investigation was taken up under the Statute on the statutory authority being satisfied about the existence of evidence of a prima facie case against the accused under Section 3 of the Act, which requires further investigation under the Act and the Rules and while considering the request for proceeding with such further investigation as per the Act, no in-depth probe can be made into the bas is for such prima facie satisfaction by the authority. 12. 12. It should also be noted that the impugns order is only in respect of permitting recording of atements of the accused and recording the legality, of the first information, report or the further proceedings or the investigation under proceeding of the Section 3 of the Act should not have been the subject of adjudication in the petition, So long as the Enforcement Case Information Report registered under the Statute exists, the request for enabling investigation under the Act and the Rules could not have been lawfully negatived by any Court or Authority and consequently, the request for access to the accused for recording their statements cannot be considered to be either without any grounds for believing the information on which the authority was proceeding to be well-founded or adequate or to be for the custody of the accused in the sense in which such custody is granted under Section 167 of the Code. 13. Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned counsel referred to the fact that in fact, much before the impugned order was passed, charge-sheet was filed in Crime No. 04(S) of 2009 against the accused and the same was taken on file by the competent Court making Section 167 of the Code no longer applicable and any remand to custody or extension of custody being possible only under Section 309 of the Code. It is true that Section 309 of the Code alone applies after the case was taken on file and any postponement or adjournment of the case and remand of the accused to custody under a warrant or extension of such custody not exceeding fifteen days at a time, shall be only under the said provision. However, as the petition, notwithstanding any inappropriate request for or reference to custody, is only one for enabling access to the Enforcement Directorate to the accused to record their statements under Section 50 of the Act, any element of remanding the accused or extending such remand under Section 309 of the Code cannot be considered relevant. However, as the petition, notwithstanding any inappropriate request for or reference to custody, is only one for enabling access to the Enforcement Directorate to the accused to record their statements under Section 50 of the Act, any element of remanding the accused or extending such remand under Section 309 of the Code cannot be considered relevant. To reiterate, either Section 167 or Section 309 of the Code has no relevance, as the consideration is confined to the request for enabling recording of statements under Section 50 of the Act, the request having been necessitated due to the accused being in judicial custody either in the crime or in the criminal case with the Court which was approached by the Enforcement Directorate. 14. The Decision in Commissioner of Income- Tax, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Delhi and others v. T arsem Kumarand another1 was relied on by Sri S.R. Ashok, learned senior counsel to draw a parallel with the inability of the Income-Tax Authorities to reach the amount in the custody of the Customs Authorities, both acting under respective statutory powers. But it may be noted that the Apex Court itself, while dismissing the appeal, clearly observed that it will be open to the Income-Tax Authorities to approach appropriate authorities to realize any amount of money or to recover any books of account or documents in accordance with law, thereby indicating that if the money or the books of account or documents are with some other authorities acting in exercise of their statutory powers, the other authority seeking to exercise its statutory powers should approach the earlier authority appropriately and in accordance with law to enable it to exercise its own statutory powers and cannot have any direct access to things over which the other authority has seisin or control. If so, the Enforcement Directorate approaching the Court under whose custody the accused are at present, for permission to record their statements, is in tune with the appropriate procedure to be adopted as indicated by the Apex Court. 15. The permission granted by the impugned order cannot also be considered to be violating, in any manner, the constitutional and statutory safe-guards against testimonial compulsion and it is needless to reiterate or emphasise that none of the accused can be compelled to be witnesses against them selves under the garb of recording statements under Section 50 of the Act. 15. The permission granted by the impugned order cannot also be considered to be violating, in any manner, the constitutional and statutory safe-guards against testimonial compulsion and it is needless to reiterate or emphasise that none of the accused can be compelled to be witnesses against them selves under the garb of recording statements under Section 50 of the Act. In fact, the impugned order was cautious in protecting the rights and interests of the accused in directing recording of their statements to be only in the presence of their counsel during daytime in the premises of Central Prison alone. The Enforcement Directorate has no control over the prison premises and the officers recording the statements of the accused cannot transgress any constitutional or statutory limitations in the vigilant presence of the counsel for the accused during recording of such statements. 16. The competence of the Assistant Director to record the statements is also sought to be questioned with reference to the definition of investigation under Section 2(na) of the Act, which included all the proceedings under the Act conducted by the Director or by an authority authorized by the Central Government under the Act for collection of evidence and as the notification relied on by the Enforcement Directorate made no reference to authorizing the Assistant Director for collection of evidence. However, Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistant Solicitor General drew attention to subsection (2) of Section 50 of the Act under which the Assistant Director is one of the specified authorities under the Act, who shall have power to summon any person whose attendance he considers necessary whether to give evidence or to produce any records during the course of any investigation or proceeding under the Act. The definition of 'investigation' and this enabling power under Section 50(2) of the Act have to be read together and no provision of the Statute can be considered redundant or superfluous. It so, ex facie, the competence of the Assistant Director under Section 50(2) of the' Act to record the statements of the accused is, ex facie, beyond question and even if the definition of 'investigation' were to cast a shadow of doubt, his competence to record a statement in respect of a 'proceeding' under the Act can never be in question. The copy of summons issued by the Assistant Director shows that he was acting in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act when he required the accused to appear before him and it may also be noted that a copy of the letter from the Chairman, dated 09-06-2009 shows that he appointed an authorized representative to appear before the authority to record the statements, of course, without prejudice to the right to challenge the impugned order. 17. Sri A. Rajashekar Reddy, learned Assistantn Solicitor General also referred to B.S. Rawat v. Mohd. Azan Khan2 to contend that even if Section 167 of the Code has any remote reference, it is clear that it would be open to the Magistrate to pass orders remanding the offenders to any other custody besides the police custody, as such accused against whom serious allegations are made, cannot be made unavailable to the Investigating Agency to shut out of investigation and put the offenders beyond the reach of the arms of law. The powers under Section 167 of the Code were held to afford every wide discretion to the Magistrate. While the said argument has sufficient force, it need not be dealt with further in the light of the opinion that Section 167 of the Code is inapplicable either due to absence of any element of custody or due to Section 309 of the Code continuing to apply after filing of the charge-sheet. 18. If no element of custody is involved in the request made by the Enforcement Directorate, the Magistrate could not have legally refused access for the Assistant Director acting under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 50 of the Act in seeking to record the statements of the accused for any valid reason and he could not have indulged in any detailed probe or given any finding about the tenability and legality of the Enforcement Case Information Report or the applicability of the Act or the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. Consequently, the course adopted by the Magistrate in the impugned order cannot, in any manner, be considered improper or unjust or illegal. 19. Consequently, the course adopted by the Magistrate in the impugned order cannot, in any manner, be considered improper or unjust or illegal. 19. Sri S.R. Ashokand Sri B. Nalin Kumar also referred to the disadvantage to which the accused are put being in judicial custody since January, 2009 and being deprived of access to any records and thus, being at a great physical and psychological disadvantage, stress and pressure. Any sympathies due to the plight of the accused cannot erase the right of the Enforcement Directorate to perform its statutory duties and functions and the learned counsel for the accused present during recording of the statements may take every precaution to prevent any prejudice to the accused in the recording of their statements due to such disadvantages or deficiencies or depression. 20. The claim that there was enabling provision to attend through authorized agent under Section 50 of the Act at the option of the accused, runs counter to the specific language of Section 50 Sub-section (3) of the Act, which refers to such attendance through authorized agent only if the officer so directs and otherwise the person summoned shall himself appear. 21. It may also have to be noted that exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code is in rarest of the rare cases within the restricted parameters laid down by the Apex Court in various decisions and is not a matter of course. The present case does not appear to be one where such extraordinary remedy is available to the petitioners herein. 22. It is averred that the Supreme Court permitting a similar request from Securities Exchange Board of India has no Precedential value and irrespective of the correctness or otherwise of such contention, the present matter is being decided independently on it own merits. 23.ln the result, both the criminal petitions are dismissed.