2022 (4) TMI 1568 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking grant of bail - huge amount embezzled in the project of Gomti River Front - HELD THAT - The matter pertains to a large scam of Rs. 1500 crores and it was an admitted fact that the applicant was the then Executive Engineer in the department and it was his responsibility to deposit the said centage charges - Corruption is a form of dishonesty which is undertaken by a person or persons or organization which is entrusted with a position of authority in order to acquire illicit benefits or abuse of power for one s personal gain. The applicant has clearly misused the power entrusted to him and he does not deserve any leniency. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the nature of offence embezzlement of huge amount complicity of accused as well as the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case the applicant cannot be released on bail. The bail application of the applicant is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Bail application under Sections 3/4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) during trial.

Analysis:
1. Prosecution Story: An Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) was registered based on a scheduled offence involving embezzlement in the Gomti River Front project. A comprehensive report submitted after judicial enquiry led to the FIR against erring officials. CBI filed a charge-sheet under various sections, leading to Directorate of Enforcement's investigation under PML Act, resulting in the attachment of property worth Rs.30 lakhs.

2. Rival Contentions: The applicant's counsel argued against the attachment, alleging lack of money trail extraction and mechanical action by the Directorate of Enforcement. The applicant denied receiving illegal amounts and cooperated in investigations. Reference was made to Supreme Court judgments regarding confessional statements and bail provisions under PML Act.

3. Opposing Arguments: The Directorate of Enforcement opposed bail, citing the burden of proof on the accused regarding the alleged amount, part of a larger scam. Allegations included non-deposit of centage charges, misappropriation, and diversion of funds by the applicant during his tenure. The applicant's lack of diligence in construction projects and misuse of official position were highlighted.

4. Conclusion: The court acknowledged the large scam and the applicant's role as an Executive Engineer responsible for financial matters. Emphasis was placed on the detrimental effects of corruption and misuse of power. The court rejected the bail application, considering the nature of the offence, the huge embezzlement amount, and the complicity of the accused. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings within a year.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal aspects, arguments presented by both parties, and the court's reasoning leading to the decision to reject the bail application.