7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
1/26
MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC
2003 SCJ 75
2003 MR 41
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS(IN CHAMBERS)
In the matter of :-
SRN: 317/03MANRAJ DHARAM DEV
App!"#$%V'
THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION A*AINST CORRUPTION
Rp+$,$%ANDSRN: 325/03
RAMDE-AR RAVI .UMAR PRASADApp!"#$%
V'
THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION A*AINST CORRUPTION
Rp+$,$%ANDSRN: 330/03
CINE NET-OR. /TDApp!"#$%
V'
THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION A*AINST CORRUPTION
Rp+$,$%ANDSRN: 331/03
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
2/26
CINE MA /TDApp!"#$%
V'
THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION A*AINST CORRUPTION
Rp+$,$%AND
SRN: 380/03
OCEAN VI//AS /TDApp!"#$%
V'
THE INDEPENDENT COMMISSION A*AINST CORRUPTION
Rp+$,$%ANDSRN: 326/03
THE MAURITIUS COMMERCIA/ BAN. /IMITED
App!"#$%
J,$%
-HAT ARE THESE APP/ICATIONS A// ABOUT
The Independent Commission !ainst Corr"ption# $ICC% is &ond"&tin!
an a''e!ed &rimina' fra"d pro(e into the f"nds deposited () the N*+ at the ,C
.hi&h f"nds a''e!ed') ended "p fortif)in! the finan&ia' stren!th of some
&ompanies and persons ICC is an emanation of the er) ne. *reention of
Corr"ption &t 2002 $*C% and its po.ers are deried from it ate afternoon
on +rida) 21st+e(r"ar)# ICC &ame "p .ith an app'i&ation "nder se&tion 56 of
the ne. &t The pp'i&ation .as in Cham(ers (efore me It so"!ht an
tta&hment rder to atta&h the f"nds of a 'ist of 10 &ompanies and 5 indiid"a's
It .as the &ase of ICC that the f"nds had (een fra"d"'ent') transferred to those
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
3/26
&ompanies and persons and that those &ompanies and persons sho"'d hae
!"i't) no.'ed!e imp"ted to them
ICACS APP/ICATION FOR AN ATTACHMENT ORDER
The !ist of the pp'i&ation for the tta&hment rder .as that-
ICAC .. has reasonable ground that the . companies and
persons have received the proceeds of crime and those companies and
persons had reasonable grounds for suspecting that the sums of moneycredited to their respective accounts derived in whole and directly from a
crime and have thus committed an offence under section 3 of the
Financial Intelligence and Anti-oney !aundering Act "##".$
The other aerments are of 'esser &onse4"en&e and the) .i'' (e dea't .ith
in &o"rse of post
The app'i&ation .as e% parte# that is in the a(sen&e of the part) a!ainst
.hom the orders .ere so"!ht s per 'a.# I had to (e satisfied that the order .as
.arranted The affidaits aerred fra"d"'ent intent I en4"ired .hether the ICC
had eiden&e of fra"d"'ent intent I .as !ien to "nderstand that ICC had or
tho"!ht it had The order .as# a&&ordin!')# !ranted There .as no do"(t in m)
mind that ICC ne. perfe&t') .e'' .hat it .as doin! a'' the more so .hen the
affidaits referred to the &ompanies and persons as s"spe&ts
CHA//EN*E OF ICACS ATTACHMENT ORDER B A REVOCATION
ORDER
+ie of the &ompanies and persons .ere st"n! to the 4"i& The) .ere:
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
4/26
haram e ,anra9
Rai "mar Ramde.ar9
Cine Ne.or td9
Cine ,a; td9
e f"rther aers that ICC has
(een a!"e# impre&ise# "n&ertain and that the pretensions of ICC hae no
dire&t or indire&t (earin! on him persona'') and do not spe&if) in an) manner
.hatsoeer ho. he is 'ined or ino'ed .ith the a''e!ed (rea&h of the 'a.
ICC responds to the a(oe in its &o"nter-affidait () statin! 2 thin!s
spe&ifi&a''): that ICC has &ome a&ross an offi&e &he4"e to the order of
,a"riti"s Te'e&oms td for the pa)ment# amon!st others# of app'i&ant@s
te'ephone (i''s The en4"ir) has a'so reea'ed that pp'i&ant has different (an
a&&o"nts at the ,a"riti"s Commer&ia' an representin! s"(stantia' s"ms of
mone) &&ordin! to the inesti!ation# there is eiden&e that one of the s"spe&ts
in the &ase .as on or a(o"t 10 +e(r"ar) 2003 in the offi&e of app'i&ant for the
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
6/26
p"rpose of draftin! a 'etter in re'ation to a s"m of Rs 25 m on (eha'f of the N*+
at the ,C
The affidait a'so states that ,r Ramde.ar .as persona'') tain!
possession of the offi&e &he4"es iss"ed () ,C# that after pri' 2002# app'i&ant
persona'') too possession of offi&e &he4"es dra.n to the order of >SC and
State an of ,a"riti"s and presented to the re'eant offi&ers at the said (ans
and effe&ted s"(se4"ent on.ard transfer to other a&&o"nt in other (ans
in&'"din! oerseas (ans
CINE NET-OR. -E .NO- NOTHIN* ABOUT NPF MONE
The third app'i&ant is Cine Net.or td Its ffi&e ,ana!er and Compan)
Se&retar)# ,ohammed ashir NaAeer# has affirmed an ffidait to the effe&t that
he is the se&retar) and the shareho'ders are : r ,ohammed Sidi& Chadee# ,rs
>annah Chad) and ,r Teeren ppasam) >e aers that pp'i&ant neer had
an) dea'in! .ith the N*+ nor had he eer (een informed that this .as the &ase#
if at a'' >e aers that ICC fai'ed to spe&if) ho.# .hen# () .hom and in .hat
&ir&"mstan&es mone) a''e!ed') misappropriated .as &redited to pp'i&ant@s
a&&o"nts pp'i&ant &ha''en!es the ires of ICC in app')in! for the order
pp'i&ant a'so aers that ICC .as not empo.ered or entit'ed to app') for s"&h
an order .hi&h does not rest on an) so"nd 'e!a' (asis and is manifest')
dis&riminator)# ar(itrar)# a("sie and oppressie
ICC has rep'ied to the ersion of pp'i&ant () .a) of &o"nter-affidait
and stated that one Teeren ppasam) is one of the dire&tors Inesti!ation
reea's that Teeren ppasam) has (een ino'ed in mone) 'a"nderin! and that
this pp'i&ant has (enefited from the pro&eeds of the &rime ICC a'so hides
(ehind the &onfidentia'it) of the en4"ir) and .o"'d not .ant to dis&'ose more
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
7/26
CINEMA -E .NO- NOTHIN* ABOUT NPF MONE
The fo"rth pp'i&ant is Cinema;; td Its ffi&e ,ana!er and Compan)
Se&retar)# ,ohammed ashir NaAeer# has affirmed an affidait to the effe&t that
he is the se&retar) and the shareho'ders are: Doo'am han Chad)# r
,ohammed Sidi& Chadee# ,rs >annah Chad)# ,r Essan han Chad)# ,r
h"'an Chad) and ire&t *roperties td >e aers that app'i&ant neer had an)
dea'in! .ith the N*+ nor had he eer (een informed that this .as the &ase# if at
a'' >e aers that ICC fai'ed to spe&if) ho.# .hen# () .hom and in .hat
&ir&"mstan&es mone) a''e!ed') misappropriated .as &redited to app'i&ant@s
a&&o"nts app'i&ant &ha''en!es the ires of ICC in app')in! for the orderpp'i&ant has aerred that the ICC app'i&ation .as "nreasona('e# "n"stified#
dis&riminator)# ar(itrar)# a("sie# oppressie and in (rea&h of the f"ndamenta'
ri!hts
s it is .ith the third app'i&ant# so it is .ith the fo"rth ICC has rep'ied
that one Teeren ppasam) is one of the dire&tors Inesti!ation has reea'ed
that Teeren ppasam) has (een ino'ed in mone) 'a"nderin! and that
Cinema;; has (enefited from the pro&eeds of the &rime ICC .o"'d not .ant to
dis&'ose more for fear of pre"di&in! the en4"ir)
OCEAN VI//AS /%, MISTA.EN IDENTIT
&ean =i''as td is the 5thapp'i&ant Its misfort"ne .as to hae taen on
the name of a preio"s &ompan) r"nnin! () that name .hi&h had e;isted at the
materia' time It has nothin! to do .ith the fa&ts of the N*+-,C matter In this
parti&"'ar &ase# ICC fina'') &on&eded that it .as a &ase of mistaen identit)
ICC ma) &onsider itse'f '"&) not to hae earned the .rath of this pp'i&ant for
a home.or (ad') done The tta&hment rder .ith respe&t to this Compan)
.as d"') reoed# ICC not o(e&tin!
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
8/26
-HAT IS THE /A-
F"estions of 'a. and fa&ts .ere raised The) re'ated to pro&ed"re as .e''
as s"(stan&e +irst# as to pro&ed"ra' o(e&tions
earned Co"nse' for ICC s"(mitted that I had no "risdi&tion to &ontin"e
hearin! the Reo&ation pp'i&ations inasm"&h as it .o"'d (e as tho"!h I .as
sittin! on appea' a!ainst m) o.n findin!s of 21 st+e(r"ar) for the tta&hment
rder earned Co"nse' s"(mitted that it is some other "d!e in Cham(ers .ho
sho"'d hae the &ompeten&e to hear these app'i&ations n&e I .as satisfied.ith an e% parteapp'i&ation# .hi&h .as !ranted# as in this &ase# that .as the end
of the matter I (e&ame functus officio nd an) app'i&ation &ha''en!in! that order
sho"'d hae (een treated () another "d!e# ran their ar!"ment
I .as dismissie of this ar!"ment The ie. I tae of the matter is as
fo''o.s n e% parteapp'i&ation is ne&essari') a one-part) app'i&ation on one
ersion of fa&ts and# in an adersaria' s)stem of "sti&e# an e;&eption for its
s"mmar) and ar(itrar) nat"re It .o"'d &ompo"nd ar(itrariness to e;pe&t those
dire&t') affe&ted () the order !ien (ehind their (a& to !o &hasin! another
"d!e for the p"rpose of p"ttin! in theirs S"&h an interpretation .o"'d (e a !reat
he'p to inesti!ators ("t .hether it .o"'d he'p &itiAens# and .orse# the
esta('ishment of a fair "sti&e s)stem# I am not so s"re It is as !ood as sa)in!
that in o"r s)stem of 'a.# a"to&rati& attit"des of instit"tions sho"'d ride and pride
oer the demo&rati& ri!hts of &itiAens That .o"'d not (e m) idea of a fair tria'
The &on&ept of fair tria' in&'"des an important e'ement in toda)@s &ase-'a.:
that of e4"a'it) of arms Co"rt that stands (et.een the &itiAen and the State or
ma&hineries of the State sho"'d ens"re that the State or State instit"tions# on the
one hand# and the &itiAen# on the other# fa&e ea&h other on 'ee' terms Bhere
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
9/26
"di&ia' pro&ess is seen to !ie an "nfair adanta!e to the State or the State
instit"tions oer the &itiAen for .hose "sti&e the State# the State instit"tions or
their ma&hiner) are the sa&red repositor) "nder the Constit"tion# the Co"rts
.o"'d (e 'a"nderin! "sti&e not de'ierin! "sti&e
The prin&ip'e of e4"a'it) of arms as one of the e'ements of the (roader
&on&ept of fair tria' is .e'' i''"strated in a series of de&isions of the E"ropean
Co"rt of >"man Ri!hts# startin! .ith Alvis v Council &'(3 )C* +' The most
re&ent is that of ,omanicy v. lovaia &3 /*C0 "### .as a S'oaian
nationa' >e had (een dismissed from .or for a''e!ed indis&ip'ine >e .as not
!ien ade4"ate time to st"d) the fi'e prior to the hearin! of the &ase a!ainst him>e had 'itt'e possi(i'it) to &omment "pon the statements .hi&h .itnesses made
a!ainst him In addition# some eiden&e .as add"&ed .itho"t an) opport"nit)
!ien to him to re("t same >e had notified the Co"rt that he .o"'d not (e a('e
to attend for hea'th reasons None the 'ess# the Co"rt &onsidered him in defa"'t
and pro&eeded to &omp'ete the &ase in his a(sen&e
The Co"rt he'd that S'oaia had io'ated rti&'e 6 se&tion 1 .hi&h
enshrined the prin&ip'e of fair tria' in not a''o.in! e4"a'it) of arms This
prin&ip'e re4"ired that ea&h part) sho"'d (e afforded a reasona('e opport"nit) to
present his or her &ase "nder &onditions that did not p'a&e him or her at a
s"(stantia' disadanta!e vis-a vishis or her opponent
rti&'e 6# Se&tion 1 of the E"ropean Conention on >"man Ri!hts
!"arantees &itiAens of State *arties a fair tria' "r Constit"tion !"arantees o"r
&itiAens fair tria' e4"a'')
The &on&ept of a fair hearin! a'so imp'ies the ri!ht to adersaria'
pro&eedin!s The ri!ht to adersaria' pro&eedin!s in&'"de the ri!ht to (e present#
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
10/26
the ri!ht to no. .hat eiden&e one has to re("t# the ri!ht to &omment on
eiden&e and o(serations fi'ed# .ith a ie. to inf'"en&in! the Co"rt@s de&ision
The Co"rt@s ro'e for the p"rpose of as&ertainin! .hether the pro&eedin!s
are fair as a .ho'e is not a passie one The appearan&e of a fair administration
of "sti&e is as ita' as the fair administration of "sti&e itse'f
In the &ase# a&&ordin!')# hain! re!ard to the re4"irements of the prin&ip'e
of the e4"a'it) of arms and to the ro'e of appearan&es in determinin! .hether
the) had (een &omp'ied .ith# the Co"rt fo"nd that the pro&ed"re fo''o.ed did not
ena('e the app'i&ant to parti&ipate proper') in the pro&eedin!s and th"s depriedhim of a fair hearin! .ithin the meanin! of the Conention The "d!es of the
E"ropean Co"rt of "sti&e de&ided that there had (een a io'ation of rti&'e 6#
Se&tion 1 and a.arded EGR 1000 dama!es a!ainst S'oaia
The se&ond re&ent &ase .here the prin&ip'e of e4"a'it) of arms .as
app'ied is igon v 1oland &3 /*C0 "##".
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
11/26
The app'i&ant# Bi'to'd ,i!on# a *o'ish nationa'# .as detained on remand
d"rin! &rimina' pro&eedin!s (ro"!ht a!ainst him on s"spi&ion of a!!raated
fra"d# fa'sifi&ation of do&"ments and iss"in! (ad &he4"es The &ase .as 'od!ed
.ith the E"ropean Commission of >"man Ri!hts and transmitted to the Co"rt for
its hearin! The app'i&ant a''e!ed# in parti&"'ar# that the pro&eedin!s to reie.
this detention on remand had not (een adersaria' and that the e4"a'it) of the
parties in these pro&eedin!s had not (een o(sered sin&e neither he nor his
&o"nse' had (een a''o.ed to attend hearin!s (efore the rao. Co"rt of ppea'
&on&ernin! the pro'on!ation of his detention on remand# .hereas the prose&"tor
had (een a('e to do so The app'i&ant a'so &omp'ained that in the pro&eedin!s
&on&ernin! the reie. of the 'a.f"'ness of his detention# neither he nor his&o"nse' had (een !ranted ade4"ate a&&ess to the &ase-fi'e of the inesti!ation
>e re'ied on rti&'e 5# Se&tion H $ri!ht to 'i(ert) and se&"rit)% of the E"ropean
Conention on >"man Ri!hts
The Co"rt &ommented on the fa&t that e4"a'it) of arms (et.een the
parties ran thro"!ho"t the .ho'e pro&ess# from the (e!innin! of an inesti!ation#
thro"!h tria' sta!e and appea' sta!e ri!ht "p to the (itter end Th"s# a Co"rt
e;aminin! an appea' a!ainst detention m"st proide !"arantees of a "di&ia'
pro&ed"re The pro&eedin!s m"st (e adersaria' and m"st ade4"ate') ens"re
that there is e4"a'it) of arms (et.een the parties
The Co"rt he'd that there had (een a io'ation of rti&'e 5# Se&tion H of the
Conention () *o'and in not ens"rin! e4"a'it) of arms The prin&ip'e is of
perasie app'i&ation from inesti!ation to fina' de&ision The fo''o.in! remar of
the Co"rt is e'o4"ent:
It thus follows that2 in view of the dramatic impact of deprivation of
liberty on the fundamental rights of the person concerned2 proceedings
conducted under Article 2 ection + of the Convention should in principle
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
12/26
also meet2 to the largest e%tent possible under the circumstances of an
ongoing investigation2 the basic re4uirements of a fair trial2 such as the
right to adversarial procedure.$
ne ma) a'so refer to the &ase of 5eumeister v Austria6 &'7' & )/** '&
on the a(oe iss"e
The s&epti& ma) .onder ho. these de&isions of the E"ropean Co"rt of
"sti&e are re'eant to o"r ,a"ritian 'a. Be do not hae a re!iona' fri&an
Co"rt of "sti&e for >"man Ri!hts Be do not hae a pan-Common.ea'th Co"rt
.here h"man ri!hts iss"es ma) (e taen to oersee ho. o"r demo&ra&) "nderthe R"'e of a. .ors Indeed# at &ertain times# .e .ish .e had nd .e ma)
.ish to hope that .e sha'' >o.eer# .ith it or .itho"t it# h"man ri!hts standards
of 'a. are for "niersa' app'i&ation and sho"'d not (e (edei''ed () &onentiona'
ideas on "risdi&tiona' soerei!nt) The R"'e of a. is not a paro&hia' ("t a
"niersa' &on&ept s has (een stated in the an!a'ore *rin&ip'es en"n&iated in
the "di&ia' Co''o4"i"m $1?88% of Common.ea'th "d!es on the omesti&
pp'i&ation of >"man Ri!hts Norms:
Fundamental human rights and freedoms are inherent in all
humanind and find e%pression in constitutions and legal systems
throughout the world and in the international human rights instruments.$
s re!ards the ro'e of Co"rts in the app'i&ation of "niersa' h"man ri!hts
standards# the an!a'ore *rin&ip'es hae this to sa):
8here is an impressive body of 9urisprudence2 both
international and national2 concerning the interpretation of particular
human rights and freedoms and their application. 8his body of
9urisprudence is of practical value to 9udges and lawyers generally.$
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
13/26
In m) o.n ie.# pro&ed"re is desi!ned to assist s"(stan&e Bhere
pro&ed"re is "sed as a te&hni&a'it) to den) s"(stan&e# the first i&tim (e&omes
"sti&e itse'f
The &onstit"tiona' ri!hts of &itiAens# reprod"&ed in ('a& and .hite oer 35
)ears a!o# sho"'d not appear to the &itiAens to hae (een .rit on .ater@ ("t
in&"'&ated in the a&t"a' pra&ti&e of instit"tions and offi&ia's and trans'ated in the
eer)da) 'iin! of the &itiAens Bhere Co"rts are seiAed of these fai'"res# Co"rts
sho"'d not effe&t# as a r"'e# hono"ra('e e;its () p'eadin! "risdi&tiona'
in&ompeten&e
earned Co"nse' for (oth pp'i&ants Nos 1 and 2 a'so s"(mitted that#
.hateer ie. ma) (e taen of the tta&hment rder and the prin&ip'e of
functus officio#@ the fa&t remains that "nder se&tion 57 $2%# pro&ed"re for a
reo&ation order is spe&ifi&a'') enisa!ed "nder the &t (efore a "d!e in
Cham(ers so that the present app'i&ations from the &ompanies and persons are
'e!a'') in order# as far as the) .ere &on&erned
Se&tion H5 $2% proides:
ub9ect to subsection :3;2 an attachment order shall2 unless
revoed by a
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
14/26
f the man) iss"es &anassed# there .ere 3 &riti&a' eno"!h to de&ide the
&ase one .a) or the other: app'i&a(i'it) of the +inan&ia' Inte''i!en&e and nti-
,one) a"nderin! &t 2002 $+I,% to the &ase9 'a& of eiden&e to
s"(stantiate aerments and the s&ope of se&tion 56 of *C I sha'' dea' .ith it
seriatim
CRIMINA/ /A- IS NOT RETROACTIVE
fter re&eiin! *residentia' assent# *C and +I, .ere pro&'aimed
on the 10th"ne 2002 ,r *"rsem s"(mitted that the a&ts &omp'ained () ICC
.ith respe&t to his &'ient too p'a&e on or a(o"t 27 ,a) 2002 To this# ,rs,anna# Co"nse' for ICC responded that mone) 'a"nderin! is a &ontin"o"s
offen&e so that it did not matter .hether the) too p'a&e (efore so 'on! as the
state of affairs hae remained the same ti'' after the 10 thof "ne I .o"'d tend to
a!ree .ith ,rs ,anna on the &ontin"o"s nat"re of an offen&e of mone)-
'a"nderin! >o.eer# the fa&t remains that the state of affairs are no 'on!er the
same .ith respe&t to app'i&ant No 1 in that he had e;ited the s&ene &omp'ete')
() ? Septem(er 2000 .hen he had resi!ned from a'' &ompanies .hi&h .ere not
State-o.ned If the ICC taes the ie. in its ffidait# as it does# that he is
"nder inesti!ation for a mone) 'a"nderin! offen&e "nder +I,# then +I,
is p'ain') inapp'i&a('e to this pp'i&ant s ri!ht') pointed o"t () ,r *"rsem#
*C does proide for transitiona' app'i&ations of offen&es "nder the repea'ed
&ts: the E&onomi& Crime and nti ,one) a"nderin! &t and se&tions 125-
133 of the Crimina' Code >o.eer# it is on') the Commissioner of *o'i&e .ho
has (een empo.ered to &ommen&e an) inesti!ation# in respe&t of an offen&e
&ommitted or a''e!ed to (e &ommitted a!ainst the repea'ed ena&tments as if
*C had not &ome into operation
THE SCOPE OF SECTION 59 OF POCA
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
15/26
,rs ,anna# for ICC# a'so s"(mitted that se&tion 56 of *C (ein! an
entire') ne. pro&ed"re in o"r 'a. re'ates to the se&"rin! of assets .hi&h ma) (e
pro&eeds of &orr"pt pra&ti&es Its prin&ipa' p"rpose is to preent a'"a('e
eiden&e or assets "nder inesti!ation from disappearin! in thin air () the time
the inesti!ators &'ose in In other .ords# it is a propert) preseration dei&e and
a &itiAen &o''a(oration dei&e
,r D'oer has no diffi&"'t) .ith this interpretation ("t he adds that in this
&ase ICC is mis"sin! se&tion 56 >e s"(mitted that se&tion 56 maes a &'ear
distin&tion (et.een s"spe&ts and !arnishees The se&tion reads:
45. Application for attachment order
$1% 5otwithstanding any other enactment2 where a
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
16/26
:c; prohibit the person from transferring2 pledging
or otherwise disposing of any money or other
property so attached e%cept in such manner as may
be specified in the order.
>is s"(mission is that as far as he is &on&erned his &'ient is a !arnishee
and not a s"spe&t
ne does not need spe&ia' effort to "nderstand se&tion 56 In e'ementar)
'a.# it means ICC needs to satisf) a "d!e in Cham(ers of 2 fa&ts:
$a% that it has reasona('e !ro"nd to s"spe&t9
$(% that an offen&e "nder either +I, or *C has (een
&ommitted
n those !ro"nds# it ma) see an tta&hment rder to atta&h propert)
Bhose propert)J The ans.er is as &'ear as: a'' mone) and other p'+p'%:,
+' +;!$ +'
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
17/26
ho'ders of mone)s and propert) a''e!ed') mishand'ed# ICC has mis&onstr"ed
its po.ers "nder the 'a.
fter hearin! the parties fo''o.in! the ori!ina' e% parte order made# I am
satisfied that the app'i&ation .as made on the .ron! premises Se&tion 56 is not
to (e "sed for s"spe&ts ("t for ho'ders in d"e &o"rse It is a &itiAen &o''a(oratie
dei&e not a s"spe&t &oer&ie too'
REASONAB/E *ROUND TO SUSPECT
+o''o.in! m) de&ision re!ardin! the s&ope of se&tion 56 a(oe#there is no stri&t need for me to dea' .ith the ne;t iss"e# that is# the 'a.@s
re4"irement of reasona('e s"spi&ion a!ainst the &ompanies and persons that
hae (een &onsidered to (e s"spe&ts for their propert) to (e atta&hed
>o.eer# ICC made reasona('e s"spi&ion on the &ompanies and
persons its 'i!ne de mire# and# it .o"'d (e an omission on m) part not to !ie
this aspe&t some &onsideration
Bhat is reasona('e s"spi&ion in 'a.J It is the &riterion the app'i&ation of
.hi&h has the effe&t of instant') &"rtai'in! some of the &r"&ia' f"ndamenta'
freedoms and prote&tions of the &itiAen +rom the moment a simp'e *o'i&e ffi&er
reasona(') s"spe&ts that a &itiAen has &ommitted an offen&e# the &itiAen 'oses
his &onstit"tiona' prote&tions so to spea
e&a"se of a'' the riss and peri's it &arries for the &itiAen# the 'e!a' term is
s"(e&ted to some ne&essar) 'e!a' and "di&ia' 4"a'ifi&ations e!a'')# the
s"spi&ion sho"'d (e reasona('e If there is no reasona(i'it) in the s"spi&ion# the
effe&t .o"'d (e drasti& for a demo&ra&) ne offi&er@s mere s"spi&ion &an set the
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
18/26
.ho'e *o'i&e +or&e and State apparat"s r"nnin! and mae a mo&er) of the
&itiAen@s freedoms and 'i(erties ne sin!'e offi&er@s s"spi&ion .o"'d mae a
differen&e (et.een a di&tatorship and a demo&ra&) a.# a&&ordin!')# sees to
!"ide the ffi&er in his appre&iation of .hen and ho. to e;er&ise his potentia'')
di&tatoria' po.ers This it does () imposin! &ertain &onditions +irst# the
s"spi&ion sho"'d (e reasona('e: ,ing v @ardner :&'7'; 7& Cr. App. *. &3> 1rince
&'?&B Crim. !. *. (3?.Se&ond reasona(i'it) sho"'d (e !a"!ed not from the
persona' point of ie. of an offi&er or his s"(e&tie standard It sho"'d (e
appre&iated from the o(e&tie standard# the point of ie. of a dispassionate
()stander: Inland *evenue Commissioners v *ossminster !td &'?#B A.C. '"
+ina'')# and important')# the s"spi&ion sho"'d (e (ased on fa&ts: ,ing v @ardner:supra;> 1rince :supra;> are v atthew February &&2 &'?&2 &'7? . 5o. &7?#
:!e%is; The fa&ts re'ied on sho"'d (e s"&h as are &onsistent .ith the imp'i&ation
of the s"spe&t in the &rime: 1edro v 0iss &'?&B " All )* '2 0.C.> &'?&B Crim.
!.*. "3( It sho"'d not (e e4"io&a' .ith his imp'i&ation and his non imp'i&ation
n') then .i'' an ffi&er@s e;er&ise of po.ers on reasona('e s"spi&ion (e
demo&rati& and not a"to&rati& and the po.er "ser (e said to (e main! a
differen&e (et.een demo&ra&) and di&tatorship
Bhat has happened in this &aseJ ICC has imp"ted dishonest moties on
the app'i&ants and treated them as s"spe&ts Bhen its t"rn &ame to sho. ()
some affidait on .hat fa&ts the) are (asin! themse'es to entertain the
s"spi&ion# the) repeat that their s"spi&ion is reasona('e# the) !ie some
information and den) "s the rest
+or app'i&ant No 1: the ans.er is that app'i&ant has re&eied pro&eeds of
the ,a"riti"s Commer&ia' an representin! s"(stantia' s"ms of mone)
&&ordin! to the inesti!ation# there is eiden&e that one of the s"spe&ts in the
&ase .as on or a(o"t 10 +e(r"ar) 2003 in the offi&e of pp'i&ant for the p"rpose
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
19/26
of draftin! a 'etter in re'ation to a s"m of Rs 25 m on (eha'f of the N*+ at the
,C
The &o"nter-affidait a'so states that ,r Ramde.ar .as persona'') tain!
possession of the offi&e &he4"es iss"ed () ,C# that after pri' 2002# he
persona'') too possession of offi&e &he4"es dra.n to the order of >SC and
State an of ,a"riti"s and presented to the re'eant offi&ers at the said (ans
and effe&ted s"(se4"ent on.ard transfer to other a&&o"nts in other (ans
in&'"din! oerseas (ans
The fa&ts ma) aro"se s"spi&ion "t the 'a. re4"ires reasona('es"spi&ion Can it (e reasona(') inferred from these fa&ts# .itho"t more# to an
o(e&tie o(serer that ,r Ramde.ar is a s"spe&t in the e)es of the 'a.
&&o"nt sho"'d (e taen of t.o important fa&ts The first is that ,r Ramde.ar is
an ttorne) at 'a. and# 'ie man) ttorne)s# he administers the f"nds of man)
&'ients >e has said so in his affidait The se&ond is that ICC has sti'' not
o(tained ,r Ramde.ar@s ersion on these transa&tions as )et Can he or an)
one for that matter reasona(') (e&ome a s"spe&t on ha'f-tr"thJ s ri!ht') pointed
o"t () 'earned Co"nse' for ,r Ramde.ar# if that is reasona('e s"spi&ion in 'a.
then eer) transa&tion in a (an or a&tiit) in the Cham(ers of an ttorne) or an)
professiona' for that matter (e&omes reasona('e s"spi&ion in 'a. and eer)one
is 'ia('e to (e arrested
+or pp'i&ant No 3# ICC@s ans.er is one Teeren ppasam) is one of the
ire&tors of the pp'i&ant Compan) Inesti!ation reea's that Teeren ppasam)
has (een ino'ed in mone) 'a"nderin! and that this app'i&ant has (enefited from
the pro&eeds of the &rime ICC a'so hides (ehind the &onfidentia'it) of the
en4"ir) and .o"'d not .ant to dis&'ose more
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
20/26
s for pp'i&ant No H# the ans.er .hi&h ICC !ies is more or 'ess the
same as a(oe Teeren ppasam) is one of the ire&tors and inesti!ation
reea's that Teeren ppasam) has (een ino'ed in mone) 'a"nderin! There is
reasona('e s"spi&ion that this app'i&ant has (enefited from the pro&eeds of the
&rime ICC# on&e a!ain# .o"'d .ant to p'ead &onfidentia'it) of the en4"ir) and
.o"'d not .ant to dis&'ose more
The ie. I tae of the matter is as fo''o.s: ICC ma) (e of opinion that
the fa&ts a''e!ed in its e)es are reasona('e s"spi&ions >o.eer# the e)es of
ICC are not the 'a.s of the &o"ntr) It is the e)es of an o(e&tie ()stander In
the a(sen&e of more detai's from .hi&h the &rimina' intent of the pp'i&ants ma)(e reasona(') inferred# one is tempted to sa) that ICC is at the sta!e on') on a
fishin! e;pedition
ICC is indeed empo.ered to "ndertae s"&h an e;&"rsion "nder se&tion
56 Bhat it has no po.er to do is to "se se&tion 56 as a &oer&ie meas"re at the
e;pense of &itiAen@s f"ndamenta' freedoms and 'i(erties To do as it has done#
ICC# (e it noted# has "sed hi!h so"ndin! 'e!a' &'i&hKs in its affidait: pro&eeds
of &rime# !iin! instr"&tions# fra"d"'ent misappropriation In a demo&rati&
s)stem of "sti&e# deried from 'on! tradition and an e;p'i&it Constit"tion .hi&h in
t"rn (oasts of a i'' of Ri!hts .hi&h is more or 'ess a te;t"a' reprod"&tion of the
E"ropean Conention of >"man Ri!hts# ICC@s approa&h ma) 'oo fri!htenin!
e!a' &'i&hKs are no s"(stit"te for eiden&e an) more than s"spi&ion is s"(stit"te
for eiden&e
The meanin! of the term reasona('e s"spi&ion has (een disti''ed from
&ase-'a. and no. reprod"&ed as se&tion 16 of nne; of the Code of *ra&ti&e
for the E;er&ise of *o'i&e ffi&ers: see Castorina v Chief Constable of urrey
&'?? 5! 0allison v Caffery :&'(; & DE 3+?2 37& and
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
21/26
iltshire v Earrett :&'((; & DE 3&"2 3""> urphy v %ford :& February &'??2
unreported;.
Reasona('e s"spi&ion m"st ne&essari') (e !ro"nded on fa&ts:
*easonable suspicion2 in contrast to mere suspicion2 must be
founded on fact. 8here must be some concrete basis for the officerGs
belief2 related to the individual person concerned2 which can be
considered and evaluated by an ob9ective third person.$
Reasona('e s"spi&ion m"st ne&essari') (e distin!"ished frommere s"spi&ion
ere suspicion2 in contrast2 is a hunch or instinct which cannot be
e%plained or 9ustified to an ob9ective observer.$
Reasona('e s"spi&ion is no instin&t# a''o.s no !"ess# no si;th
sense It is s&ientifi& It has to find s"pport on fa&ts# not e4"io&a' fa&ts ("t
fa&ts &onsistent .ith !"i't '' that an inesti!ator) a"thorit) ma) do .ith its
h"n&hes is eep the person "nder o(seration ("t it &annot a&t on it
An officer who had a hunch or instinct might well be 9ustified in
eeping the person under observation but additional grounds would be
needed to bring suspicion to the level of reasonable suspicion.$
Se&tion 16 of the En!'ish *o'i&e < Crimina' Eiden&e &t 1?8H
maes it amp') &'ear as to ho. inesti!ator) offi&ers sho"'d (e !"ided in
app')in! the prin&ip'e of reasona('e s"spi&ion in their da)-to-da) pra&ti&e
It is as fo''o.s:
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
22/26
&.(. hether reasonable grounds for suspicion e%ist will
depend on the circumstances in each case2 but there must be
some ob9ective basis for it.$
+or instan&e# in the &ase of a motorin! offen&e# the fa&t that a ehi&'e@s
&hassis n"m(er differs from the one stated in its papers ma) (e reasona('e
s"spi&ion >o.eer# resistan&e to !ie name and address on (ein! stopped ()
*o'i&e .o"'d not aro"se reasona('e s"spi&ion: are v attew :supra;.ie.ise#
in an en4"ir) for sto'en propert)#
:A;n officer will need to consider the nature of the articlesuspected of being carried in the conte%t of other factors such as the time
and the place2 and the behaviour of the person concerned or those with
him. *easonable suspicion may e%ist2 for e%ample2 where information
has been received such as a description of an article being carried or of a
suspected offender> a person is seen acting covertly or warily or
attempting to hide something> or a person is carrying a certain type of
article at an unusual time or in a place where a number of burglaries or
thefts are nown to have taen place recently.$
n) &oer&ie de&ision on reasona('e s"spi&ion m"st (e (ased on a'' the
fa&ts .hi&h (ear on the 'ie'ihood that an arti&'e of a &ertain ind .i'' (e fo"nd
Conerse')# reasona('e !ro"nds for s"spi&ion do not e;ist .here ph)si&a'# so&ia'#
ps)&ho'o!i&a' or other pre"di&es &ome into p'a) Th"s#
*easonable suspicion can never be supported on the basis of
personal factors alone. For e%ample2 a personGs colour2 age2 hairstyle or
manner of dress2 or the fact that he is nown to have a previous
conviction for possession of an unlawful article2 cannot be used alone or
in combination with each other as the sole basis on which to search that
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
23/26
person. 5or may it be founded on the basis of stereotyped images of
certain persons or groups as more liely to be committing offences.$
+a&ts ma) point "ne4"io&a'') to the ie. taen () the po'i&e or
e4"io&a'') to that ie. Bhere the) point "ne4"io&a'')# the s"spi&ion is
reasona('e Bhere the) are e4"io&a'# no &oer&ie a&tion ma) (e taen () the
*o'i&e "nti' the fa&ts (e&ome "ne4"io&a' +or e;amp'e# in are v atthew
:supra;2 the Co"rt o(sered that an initial refusal of name and address was
consistent at least as much with that of a wrong-headed ill-informed motorist as
with that of a man guilty of theft.$In s"&h &ases# it a&&ords .ith !ood sense for
the *o'i&e to p'a&e the person in 4"estion "nder o(seration rather than tae&oer&ie a&tion on do"(tf"' s"spi&ion
T.o other aspe&ts re4"ire m) &omments: the p'ea of ICC that more to
dis&'ose .o"'d pre"di&e its in4"ir) In Christie v !eachinsy &'+7B & All )* (7#
the 'eadin! &ase on po'i&e po.ers# =is&o"nt Simon &ommented that if a
po'i&eman arrests on reasona('e s"spi&ion he is not entit'ed to eep the reason
to himse'f The other aspe&t of the aerment of ICC is the s"perimposition of
reasona('e s"spi&ion The aerment is that ICC has reasona('e !ro"nd to
s"spe&t that the L &ompanies and persons L had reasona('e !ro"nds for
s"spe&tin! that L the) .ere hand'in! mone) from tainted so"r&e This ass"mes
that anti-&orr"ption 'a.s and anti-mone) 'a"nderin! 'a.s are &rimes of stri&t
'ia(i'it) s s"&h# it does not matter .hether the &ompanies and persons had or
did not hae the re4"ired &rimina' intent n s"&h an interpretation# it .o"'d
s"ffi&e to imp"te the mens rea$menta' state% of a reasona('e man "pon a'' these
&ompanies and persons and p"t them (ehind (ars The 'a. .o"'d not a''o. an)
&onsideration as to .hether the) had the s"(e&tie mens reaor not The 'east
said a(o"t s"&h an interpretation the (est
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
24/26
est I sha'' (e ta;ed of an "n"stified preferen&e for !iin! more .ei!ht to
h"man ri!hts iss"es than to anti-&orr"ption iss"es# 'et me dra. from re&o!niAed
anti-&orr"ption e;perts In the So"r&e oo 2000# Confrontin! Corr"ption: The
E'ements of a Nationa' Inte!rit) S)stem# Transparen&) Internationa' proposes
ei!ht !enera' prin&ip'es .hi&h sho"'d !oern a nationa' strate!) a!ainst
&orr"ption mon! those# it is e'o4"ent that the first - the er) first - speas of a
&orr"ption 'a. "nder the r"'e of 'a.# in &onsonan&e .ith h"man ri!hts
!"arantees
&. !aws against corruption should comply with international
human rights standards and afford a fair trial to those accused. It iscrucial that criminal laws against corruption respect human rights
guarantees2 under a Constitutional Eill of *ights or an international code2
to ensure specific procedures are not struc down by the courts as being
unconstitutional.H
No. for m) o.n ie.s# &orr"ption is () and 'ar!e the ri!hts of &apita'
Ri!hts of &apita' &annot ride ro"!h-shod on ri!hts of h"manind That the
&o"ntr) has to improe its nationa' and internationa' ima!e in the &orr"ption
per&eption inde;# of that there &an (e no do"(t >o.eer# it sho"'d not in the
pro&ess impair its nationa' and internationa' ima!e on the h"man ri!hts
per&eption inde; The t.o inde;es are not m"t"a'') e;&'"sie
I (e'iee that a pra&ti&e of a 'a. a!ainst &orr"ption that pa)s s&ant re!ard
to >"man Ri!ht standards is as !"i't) of &orr"pt pra&ti&e as the &orr"pt pra&ti&e
the 'a. sees to stamp o"t ,ethods that are per&eied to (e hi!h-handed#
io'atie of (asi& prin&ip'es of fairness and (rea&h of f"ndamenta' freedoms and
'i(erties in a so&iet) so een to improe on them ma) .e'' (e &o"nter-prod"&tie
The &omp'ete pro&ess sho"'d e;"de fairness# from the sta!e of den"n&iation#
thro"!h inesti!ation sta!e ri!ht "p to the sta!e of tria'# erdi&t and senten&e#
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
25/26
.here senten&e is prono"n&ed This is no s"!!estion that ICC is oersteppin!
*C is a ne. 'a. It is (o"nd to !o thro"!h a teethin! period "t as the Report
of Transparen&) Internationa' remars# it is not ri!ht that from the moment an
operation starts# eer)(od) &on&erned is re!arded and treated as an enem)
ICC &an i''-afford an a'' ro"nd &oer&ie strate!) not 4"ite &onsonant .ith the
phi'osoph) of the &t# .hi&h sees the &ooperation and &o''a(oration of a''
&on&erned s Transparen&) Internationa' o(seres: A single-minded focus on
corruption prevention can also have a negative impact on personal freedoms and
fundamental human rights6$$see the S"mmar) of TI So"r&e oo# i(id%
+or a'' the reasons a(oe# I reoe the order a!ainst the first fo"r
app'i&ants .hi&h I had made on the 21st
of +e(r"ar) 2003 It is open to ICC to"se se&tion 56 as a &o''a(oratie instead of &oer&ie meas"re
In the 'i!ht of the a(oe order# the iss"e of Interention () pp'i&ant
,a"riti"s Commer&ia' an td does not arise
+or pp'i&ant in the 1st &ase
,r R *"rsem# of &o"nse'
,r R "&to.ansin!# ttorne)
+or pp'i&ant in the 2nd &ase
,r D D'oer# of Co"nse'
,r Se.ra# ttorne)
+or pp'i&ant in the 3rd < Hth &ases,r Toor("th# of Co"nse'
,rs R rimoh"n# ttorne)
+or pp'i&ant in 5 th &ase
,r > "a'# of Co"nse'
,r D N! Bon! >in!# of ttorne)
+or pp'i&ant in the 6th &ase
,r * Spei''e# of Co"nse'
,r T oeni!# ttorne)
7/27/2019 MANRAJ D D & ORS v ICAC.pdf
26/26
+or Respondent in a'' &ases
,rs D ,anna# ! Chief e!a' diser#
,rs + ,oo'na# *rin&ipa' State ttorne)
Top Related