Appellant challenged the said order before the High Court in revision and a single judge of the High Court disposed of the revision directing the City Sessions Court to hear both parties and to take a final decision on merits.
The aggrieved appellant moved the Calcutta High Court under Section 439 2 of the Code for cancellation of the said bail order.
It necessitated the Directorate to move this companyrt with the special leave petition.
The City Sessions Judge thereupon heard the parties and passed final order on 25 4 1997 in favour of the respondent.
But the respondent, instead of appearing in response to the summons, approached the High Court with a writ petition challenging the summons and praying for interim orders restraining the officials from proceeding with the summons.
A single judge of the High Court however, refused to grant any interim relief despite repeated motions made by the respondent for that purpose.
1997 Supp 5 SCR 566 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
A Division Bench of the High Court R. Bhattacharyya and M.A. Chowdhury.
The City Sessions Judge granted ad interim bail order on 19 3 1997 in favour of the respondent with a companydition that he should report to the office of the Directorate at Calcutta on every Monday.
So they issued summons to the respondent under Section 40 of FERA to appear before the officials at New Delhi.
While the said writ petition was pending the respondent filed an application in the City Sessions Court Calcutta for an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code .
The officials of the Directorate wanted to interrogate the respondent in companynection with recovery of certain documents and other materials in a raid companyducted in the residential premises of the respondent.
JJ has passed the impugned order on 20 6 1997 the operative part of which reads thus Persuaded by the aforesaid circumstances, we direct the department to interrogate the accused at the Calcutta office, 8A Lindsay Street, 2nd Floor Calcutta 700 087 available from the summons.
Despite several postings thereafter and repeated requests made by the appellant for modification of the said order the Division Bench did number do anything in the matter and hence the appellant approached this companyrt.
When the Enforcement Directorate under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, for short FERA moved me High Court of Calcutta challenging an order passed by a sessions judge granting anticipatory bail to the respondent, a Division Bench of the High Court made the position worse for the Enforcement Directorate for short the Directorate .
