CBI Can't Seek Demand Draft Of Suspected Proceeds Of Crime U/S 91 CrPC: Delhi High Court

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed,

“There are established means and procedures in place to secure/attach the suspected proceeds of crime, but definitely direction to prepare a Draft of the amount suspected to be proceeds of crime, would neither come within the definition of Document or Other Thing, production of which can be sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C.”

The bench was dealing with a petition filed by Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd, authorized dealer of Bentley vehicles in India, against an order requiring them to furnish a Demand Draft of Rs. 50,00,000/- in the name of CBI.

CBI alleged the amount was proceeds of crime received from a Maharashtra-based firm.

Exclusive Motors on the other hand claimed that the amount was forfeited by it after the firm, which sought to purchase the Bentley Mulsanne car from it, failed to make the balance payment. It claimed to have no nexus with any of the alleged offences committed by the firm.

In any case, it was argued that recovery of the amount by way of Demand Draft (DD) is not a “document” or “other thing” within the meaning of Section 91 CrPC and hence, is not liable to be produced.

CBI however alleged that the DD sought to be produced falls within the ambit of 'other documents' under Section 91 CrPC.

While the High Court agreed that a DD may per se constitute a 'document' however, the question to be considered, it said, is whether the same could be directed to be made and produced in an Order passed under Section 91 CrPC.

Section 91 prescribes twin conditions to invoke the provision— (i) it is limited to the document or thing; and (ii) it has to be in his possession or power.

In the present case however, the Court observed that the impugned Order does not relate to a document or other thing, which was in existence on the date when the Order was passed.

“Rather it specifically ordered that the Petitioner the get the draft made…thus, positing that it does not exist when it is ordered to be produced in an Order passed under Section 91,” it observed.

The Court relied on Rahul Hi-rise Ltd. & Anr. vs. State of Assam & Ors. (2012) where the Gauhati High Court, in similar facts held that while a police officer has power to direct production of any document or other thing necessary or desirable for the purpose of investigation, this provision cannot be invoked for seizure of bank account as no such power is conferred on the police officer under this Section.

As such, the impugned order was set aside.

Appearance: Karan Bharihok, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI. Ms. Anubha Bhardwaj, SPP with Ms. Mehak Arora, Adv. for CBI.

Case title: Exclusive Motors Pvt Ltd v. CBI & Ors.

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 1413/2021

Click here to read judgment