Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2023 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 1300 - HC - Money LaunderingConstitutional Validity of Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - money diverted to M3M group of companies by IREO group companies after layering of funds - all the companies through which funds were routed by IREO group to M3M group were shell companies owned/controlled/managed by M3M group and its controller only - HELD THAT:- The act of directing remand of an accused is a judicial function. The orders of remand passed by the Special Court/Additional Sessions Judge on duty reveal that the merits of the matter as well as the question that the detention of the petitioners was justified or not, had been dealt with while remanding them to custody. As such, in our considered opinion, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge correctness of these orders at this stage. More so, the question as to legality of initial detention of the petitioners might be examined on the dates on which they were remanded to custody of respondent No.2 or to judicial custody as on the specific dates on which the orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) were passed and their present confinement cannot be held to be invalidated on the ground that the orders detaining them in custody initially were illegal - no ground has been made out for setting aside the orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) respectively as passed by learned Duty/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby the petitioners have been remanded to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody on 15.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 26.06.2023. On perusal of the material placed on record, it has been revealed that the allegations as levelled against Judicial Officer namely, Mr. Sudhir Parmar who is alleged to have taken undue favours from the present petitioners and other key persons of M3M group of companies and Managing Director of IREO company are being investigated by respondent No.2. The same are quite serious in nature. Keeping in view the gravity of the same, the prayer as made by the petitioners for grant of release from custody at this stage does not deserve to be accepted. Petition dismissed.
|