|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 342 Records
-
2023 (3) TMI 387
Maintainability of petition - petition for mandatory bail under Section 16(2) has been filed even after filing of alleged charge sheet - Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The present petition was filed on 17.01.2023 nearly after 53 days after the statutory period of 60 days, as such, it cannot be said that the right of bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C and the petition are maintainable. In the event of an application being made on 26.11.2022, the approach of this Court would have been on the circumstances prevailing then. However, when no application was made on the 60th day and the petitioner suffering dismissal order of bail on 07.12.2022, cannot urge the Special Court to entertain an application for default bail which was filed on 17.01.2023 taking recourse to the judgment of this Court in the case of C.Parthasarathy’s case [2022 (6) TMI 164 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT].
The prayer for directing the Special Judge to entertain the default bail application vide SR No.548 of 2023 which was filed on 17.01.2023 nearly 113 days after his arrest. Statutory bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C has to be made on the date on which the right accrues which may be 60 or 90 or 180 days or 12 months as the case may be. Filing an application subsequently and asking the Court to entertain the application as ‘status quo ante’, cannot be permitted.
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 386
Territorial Jurisdiction - FIR is registered in Mumbai and properties seized were all forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority in Delhi - predicate Offence - Search and Seizure - Constitutional Validity of search conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others [[2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT]] has held that once the predicate offence is ended in discharge or acquittal, the proceedings initiated by the ED cannot be proceeded. Of course, there is no second thought in the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
However, in this case the main objection by the learned Special counsel for respondent is that the FIR in predicate offence and FIR in ED case were all registered at Mumbai and the properties seized were all forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi and this Court cannot quash or stay the proceedings which has no territorial jurisdiction.
The judgment of the Madras High Court in S. Ilanahai vs. The State of Maharashtra [2015 (1) TMI 1487 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and the Delhi High Court in Sayed Mohd. Masood vs.Union of India and Another [[2014 (3) TMI 300 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] were categorically held that when the FIR is registered in some other State, merely the petitioner-accused staying in Karnataka State and bank account is operating at Karnataka, this Court cannot take the cognizance and quash or stay the criminal proceedings in favour of the petitioner. The decision rendered by the Madras High Court as well as the Delhi High Court is agreed upon that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition and pass any order against the respondent-ED when the case was registered at Mumbai and properties were seized and forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi. Therefore, the only option available to the petitioner is to approach the Mumbai Court having territorial jurisdiction and also an alternative and efficacy remedy available before the Adjudicating Authority at Delhi. Therefore, this Court cannot interfere and pass any order with the action taken by the respondent-ED in the case registered at Mumbai.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 385
Seeking grant of Regular Bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - huge bungling, fraud and forgery - twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA satisfied or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, this is an admitted case of the prosecution that after lodging the ECIR on 14.04.2012, the E.D. has not tried to arrest the present applicant under Section 19 of the PMLA. Even after release of the present applicant from jail in the predicate offence in the year 2015, the present applicant was called twice by the E.D. under Section 50 of the PMLA to record his statement on 23.12.2016 and 10.06.2019 where the applicant appeared and recorded his statement but the E.D. has not arrested the applicant under Section 19 of the PMLA. Therefore, it is clear that considering the proper cooperation of the present applicant in the investigation and evidences, material and allegations against the applicant, the Investigating Officer did not find it proper to arrest the applicant under Section 19 of the PMLA.
Notably, the statutory rights of the present applicant defined under Section 204 (3) & 208 Cr.P.C. have been violated by the Investigating Agency inasmuch as he has not been provided copy of complaint, copy of statements and other relevant documents.
The Apex Court in re; Aman Preet Singh [2021 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] and Satender Kumar Antil [2022 (8) TMI 152 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically observed that arrest of any person is not mandatory in each and every case but before curtailing the liberty of an accused person, the relevant facts and circumstances should be visualized. In the present case, prima facie, there was no requirement to take the applicant into custody when he appeared before the learned trial court pursuant to the summons being issued inasmuch as he has never flouted the process of law, he cooperated in the investigation throughout, the Investigating Agency has never thought to arrest him under Section 19 of the PMLA despite he appeared before the E.D. to record his statement twice pursuant to the summons being issued under Section 50 of the PMLA and there was no request of the E.D. before the learned trial court to the effect that arrest of the present applicant is warranted - thus, it appears that the learned trial court has taken the custody of the present applicant without following the settled proposition of law of the Apex Court in Aman Preet Singh and Satender Kumar Antil.
The applicant- Govind Prakash Pandey directed to be released on bail in the aforesaid crime case on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties of Rs.1,00,000/- each before the Trial Court concerned with the conditions imposed - bail application is allowed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 301
Money Laundering - issuance of production warrant - Jurisdiction of the Trial Court and also the authority of the Head Investigation Unit (HIU), Enforcement Directorate to investigate into the matter - HELD THAT:- Petitioner’s case is that the Enforcement Directorate orally assured the Hon’ble Bench at Delhi High Court that they would not execute production warrant issued against the petitioner by the Trial Court on 19th December, 2022. Such assurance was not recorded in any of the orders passed by the Hon’ble Judges at Delhi High Court in different proceedings. The learned Advocate for the petitioner relies on a report published by “Live Law” in support of his contention. Though it is needless to say that this Court cannot take judicial notice on publication of certain news in an Online News Portal, it is pertinent to mention that the said report states that the ED gave an oral assurance to Delhi High Court that it would not execute the production warrant against the petitioner till 9th January, 2023. There is absolutely no record that after 9th January, the opposite party renewed such oral assurance before any judicial forum.
In the instant case, the petitioner was sent to District Hospital, Asansol on 2nd March, 2023 when he complained of his illness. It is submitted by the learned Deputy Solicitor General on instruction that the petitioner has been discharged from the hospital. Therefore, it is presumed that there is no acute reason to hold that the petitioner is unfit by reason of his sickness from being removed to Delhi.
Since Section 482 can only be invoked to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of the Code or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In the instant case, it is found from the pleadings and the relief sought for by the petitioner that the petitioner has been trying to obstruct the process of the Court. This is not the only instance. The petitioner repeatedly filed series of applications to resist the Enforcement Directorate from executing production warrant issued against him - Since there is no order of stay of execution of production warrant dated 19/20th December, 2022 by any judicial forum, and the impugned order is absolutely interlocutory in nature, there are no merit in the instant revision.
The revisional application being not maintainable, fails.
-
2023 (3) TMI 134
Rejection of an application filed by the Petitioner seeking transfer of the proceedings to a bench in terms of Section 6(7) of the PMLA - territorial jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The judgment in J Sekar [[2018 (1) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] clearly covers the issue. The Adjudicating Authority is located in Delhi and in terms of the ratio in J Sekar, this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
Alternate remedy before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the PMLA - HELD THAT:- The power of the Appellate Tribunal as held in Sanjay Jain [[2023 (1) TMI 298 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] and U. S. Awasthi [[2023 (1) TMI 595 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] is wide. The Tribunal adjudicates appeals arising out of orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority on a daily basis.
In the present case, the Petitioner seeks the constitution of a Bench under Section 6(7), consisting of two members at the Adjudicating Authority level for the purpose of deciding the confirmation of the impugned Provisional Attachment order.
A perusal of the provision of Section 6(7) of the PMLA, would show that it is only at the time of hearing in any matter, if the Chairperson or a member feels that the matter or case is such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench of two members, then the Chairperson may assign a two-member Bench for hearing of the said order - In the present case, there has been no opinion expressed by the Adjudicating Authority to the effect that the matter is so complex so as to require a two-member Bench. The Petitioner in this case has moved an application seeking constitution of two-member Bench, the maintainability of which itself could be suspect inasmuch as there has been no opinion expressed by any member of the A that such a Bench is required.
The Adjudicating Authority has rejected the application filed by the Petitioner and the matter is now stated to be for final hearing before the Adjudicating Authority. In such a situation, this Court is of the view that an application under Section 6 and 7 would not even be maintainable - In any event, even if the said order of the Adjudicating Authority is to be challenged, an appeal under Section 26 would be the appropriate remedy and not a writ petition. There are no grounds that have been raised in this case for exercise of the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (3) TMI 133
Seeking grant of bail - money laundering - commission of the scheduled/predicate offence - proceeds of crime - foreign funds have been remitted to India through hawala/ underground channels and through remittance sent to the accounts of members/ activists/office bearers of PFI/CFI and other related organizations - Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- It is clear that a person may not be involved in original criminal activity that had resulted in generation of proceed of crime but he can join the main accused either as abettor or conspirator for committing the offence of money laundering by helping him in laundering the proceed of crime. Therefore, just because the applicant was not named or not prosecuted for the predicate offence, his prosecution for money laundering cannot be said to be illegal.
The Apex Court in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] has held that provision in the form of Section 45 of PMLA, as applicable post amendment of 2018, is reasonable and has direct nexus with the purposes and objects sought to be achieved by the PMLA to combat the menace of money laundering having transnational consequences including impacting the financial systems and sovereignty and integrity of the country. While granting bail of an accused person, twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA will have to be adhered to.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue in question, the bail application of the present applicant does not qualify the twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA inasmuch as at this stage it cannot be observed that the present applicant has not committed the offence for which the complaint has been filed against him. The proceed of crime is also in crores. The applicant is based at Abu Dhabi. The factum of guilt can be proved or disproved before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the E.D. has informed that the trial in the present case is going on with good pace and the same may likely be concluded very soon, therefore, bail cannot be granted to the present applicant, rather direction issued to the learned trial court to conclude the trial with expedition.
The bail application is rejected.
-
2023 (3) TMI 132
Money Laundering - provisional attachment of property on the ground of being proceeds of crime - seeking extension of time granted by the learned Single Judge, to file effective reply to the show cause notices since a large number of properties have been provisionally attached - HELD THAT:- From a conjoint reading of relevant provisions of Sections 5 and 8 of PMLA, it is seen that there is no such time limit statutorily prescribed for submission of reply to the show cause notice issued under Sub-Section (1) of Section 8 of PMLA though it has to be borne in mind that under Sub- Section (3) of Section 5 every order of attachment made under Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 which is the subject matter of proceedings under Section 8 shall cease to have effect after expiry of 180 days or on the date of an order made under Sub-Section (3) of Section 8, whichever is earlier.
Insofar the concern of the Enforcement Directorate pertaining to the overall limitation of 180 days is concerned, the 3rd proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 clearly protects the interest of the Enforcement Directorate. While computing the period of 180 days, the period during which proceedings under Section 5 is stayed by the High Court shall be excluded and thereafter a further period not exceeding 30 days shall be counted to arrive at the figure of 180 days. The direction of the learned Single Judge granting two months of further time to respondent Nos.1 to 29 to file reply to the show cause notice is in the nature of a stay order passed by the Court and therefore, the 3rd proviso to Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 will come into play - the period extended by the learned Single Judge would expire on 22.02.2023. If by that time respondent Nos.1 to 29 do not file their reply, it would be open to the appellant to proceed in accordance with law.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 69
Seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus (to present/produce the person before the court) to forthwith release the petitioner from illegal custody - only ground urged for seeking a writ of habeas corpus is that the learned Special Judge granted remand of more than 15 days in one go and not there was no valid remand order - HELD THAT:- The issue whether an order of remand is required to be passed under Section 167 CrPC even if the accused is not entitled to default bail, when no cognizance is taken despite filing of chargesheet has been considered in SSURESH KUMAR BHIKAMCHAND JAIN VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. [2013 (2) TMI 821 - SUPREME COURT]. Hon’ble Supreme Court noted that from the provisions of Section 167 CrPC, it would be amply clear that the Magistrate may authorize the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that there are adequate grounds for doing so, but no Magistrate is authorized to detain the accused person in custody for a total period exceeding 90 days. The power of remand is vested in the Court at the very initial stage before taking cognizance under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and once cognizance is taken, power to remand shifts to the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. It was thus categorically held that in case, on the filing of the charge sheet, cognizance is not taken, the Magistrate may postpone the commencement of, or adjourn, any inquiry or trial, for reasons to be recorded and may by a warrant, remand the accused if in custody for a period of 15 days at a time. Thus, in cases, where though charge sheet is filed, however, sanction is not received, the accused will have no right to bail, however, his remand under Section 167 CrPC will be required to be continued if necessary.
In the decisions reported as NATABAR PARIDA VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA [1975 (4) TMI 132 - SUPREME COURT], it was held that before the Court proceeds to the next stage of Section 309 CrPC, the accused has to be remanded in custody of some Court. The two stages i.e. one under Section 167 CrPC and the other under Section 309 CrPC though different but one follows the other so as to maintain a continuity of the custody of the accused with the Court. Thus, it is clear that on 13th January 2023 or even on the adjourned date i.e. 24th January 2023 after the complaint was filed on 13th January 2023, no order of judicial remand was passed against the petitioner.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously challenged that the learned Special Judge could not have taken up the file suo-moto on the request of the Reader on 13th February 2023. Be that as it may, passing of a remand order is a judicial act and realizing the error committed, the learned Special Judge corrected the mistake and vide order dated 14th February 2023, directed the Rehnumai remand of the petitioner. Thus, even if on the date of filing of the petition, the custody of the petitioner was illegal in the absence of an order of remand, however, before the date of return which was 20th February 2023, when the matter was to be heard, the said defect had been rectified and the custody of the petitioner was no more illegal.
There is no dispute to the proposition raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an order of remand is a judicial remand and the same cannot be passed on chits of paper. However, in the present case, the learned Special Judge took up the file, issued notice to the parties and thereafter, directed the Rehnumai remand.
There are no ground to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus releasing the petitioner from the custody - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (3) TMI 68
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - predicate/scheduled offence - smuggling of contraband (Heroin) from Pakistan - HELD THAT:- This Court is not in a position to record its prima facie satisfaction on the three ingredients in order to dilute the rigour of presumption arising out of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002. In view of law laid down in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], all the three conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 are to be satisfied.
Thus, no ground is made out to grant indulgence in favour of the petitioner. The petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1376
Provisional attachment - Expiry of 80 days mandatory period for confirmation of the provisional attachment u/s 5 of PMLA - it was held by High Court that 'learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the provisional attachment order.'
HELD THAT:- It is not required to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1338
Maintainability of the petition based on the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) not being a statutory document - HELD THAT:- The fact remains that acceptance of ‘C Summary’ by the Magistrate is not a fact in dispute, as the said fact can be borne out of the record. As far as registration of 17 other offences against the Petitioners are concerned, it can be borne out of the record based on various orders passed by the Division Bench order in the nature of no coercive action was passed in favour of the Petitioners against State-investigating agency.
Having regard to the fact that the Division Bench has already quashed the FIR against the petitioners, the case for grant of ad-interim relief is made out.
The ad-interim relief qualified thereby permitting the Respondent to continue with the investigation - Matter to come up for consideration on 10th March, 2023.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1300
Seeking post-arrest bail which was declined by the High Court - charges has not been framed so far - HELD THAT:- No interference is required at this stage - However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his application for bail after framing of charge/discharge, as the case may be, before the Trial Court. If such an application is filed, the same may be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made by the High Court under the order impugned.
SLP dimissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1279
Grant of bail - Money Laundering - opening of 446 numbers of bank accounts of various persons in connivance with the brothers of Babulal Agrawal and later on, the entire amount was transferred to M/s Prime Ispat Limited through 13 shell companies - allegations against the present applicants are that they helped the main accused persons and they were involved in the commission of the crime in question - HELD THAT:- From bare reading of the Section 45 of the Act of 2002, it appears that the court has to record finding with regard to grant of an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor and if the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court has to record its satisfaction to the effect that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, before passing an order of release of an accused. In the matter of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Ashok Kumar Agrawal same offence arising out of same complainant case was registered, but no plea was taken by Enforcement Directorate before this High Court and they have been granted protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrawal and Another [2023 (2) TMI 1218 - SC ORDER], held that considering the fact that during the investigation, the Investigating Agency never arrested the petitioner(s) and that the petitioner(s) had co-operated during the investigation and that now the Charge-sheet is already filed and the custodial investigation is not required, we deem it appropriate to make order dated 23.03.2022 as absolute. It is directed that in case of arrest of petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the learned Trial Court.
Considering the fact that the similar relief has been granted to the similarly situated accused persons by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this bail application is allowed in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is directed that in case of arrest of the present applicants, they shall be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the trial Court - application allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1278
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - prosecution did not feel necessity to put the petitioner to custodial interrogation and/or arrest him for being taken to judicial custody - HELD THAT:- No meaningful purpose will be served by retaining the petitioner in judicial custody and the conclusion of trial is likely to take reasonable time, but without expressing any views on the merits of this case, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge - SLP disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1274
Money Laundering - conspiracy - proceeds of crime - GST violation or not - commission of any scheduled offence in terms of the Scheduled Part A & B in terms of Section 2(x) of the PMLA, 2002 or not - admissible statements under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002 - judicial proceedings within the meaning of Section 193 & 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or not - it was held by High Court that There is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 03.11.2022 of the learned Trial Court holding that prima facie case is made out against the accused/ petitioner herein of the alleged commission of the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the said enactment - HELD THAT:- The case is only at the stage of framing of the charges by the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
No interference needed at this stage - SLP dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1239
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - ill-gotten immovable property, generated through illegal activities related to scheduled offence - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with the complaint case by the respondent for offence of money-laundering under Section 3 of PMLA Act and punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Though supplementary charge sheet has been filed, but once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with the offence of PMLA Act, the underlying principles and rigour of Section 45 of the Act gets triggered.
The record submitted by the respondents prima facie shows nexus between the primary offender and the applicant, who is found to be an accessory to money-laundering. From the material collected by the Investigating Agency, considering the nature of allegations and the seriousness of offence alleged, prima facie, at this stage, it cannot be said that the applicant has not committed any offence alleged against him.
The Supreme Court in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] while dismissing the anticipatory bail application has observed that power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. being an extra- ordinary remedy has to be exercised sparingly, more so in cases of economic offences which stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society.
Thus, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1218
Seeking release from jail - petitioner was arrested or not - HELD THAT:- Considering the fact that during the investigation, the Investigating Agency never arrested the petitioner(s) and that the petitioner(s) had co-operated during the investigation and that now the Charge-sheet is already filed and the custodial investigation is not required, we deem it appropriate to make order dated 23.03.2022 as absolute. It is directed that in case of arrest of petitioner(s), the petitioner(s) be released on bail on the terms and conditions that may be determined by the learned Trial Court.
SLP disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1179
Money laundering - If there is an acquittal/discharge in the scheduled offence, will the proceedings under the PMLA Act would still survive? - If one is not an accused in the scheduled offence, still independent proceedings can be initiated under the PMLA Act? - HELD THAT:- Issue notice, returnable on 14.03.2023 (NMD).
In the meantime, the parties shall maintain status quo with reference to the properties referred to in the order impugned.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1097
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - seeking release of the attached properties - HELD THAT:- In Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. UOI & Ors., [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court has held that if the person accused has been discharged or acquitted of the scheduled/predicate offence, then there can be no offence of money laundering against the said accused person.
The Supreme Court in Indrani Patnaik & Anr. v. Enforcement Directorate and Ors. [2022 (11) TMI 1311 - SUPREME COURT] has recently held that there cannot be any prosecution in relation to an offence for which the accused person has already been discharged.
This position of law in terms of proceedings under the PMLA has been recently considered by this Court in EMTA Coal Limited and Ors. v. The Deputy Director of Directorate of Enforcement [2023 (1) TMI 694 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In the said judgement it was held that once the closure report in the offences under respective FIRs has been filed, no criminality is ascertainable and the respective PAOs as well as the ECIRs are liable to be quashed.
In view of the settled legal position in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and the subsequent decisions and orders thereafter, the properties of Mr. Sachin Joshi and M/s. Muktanand Agro Farming Pvt. Ltd. which were attached by the impugned PAOs shall be released - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1045
Seeking grant of Anticipatory bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence/scheduled offence - systematic conspiracy has been planned and executed by a number of infrastructure companies based at Hyderabad in collusion with a few Government officials and IT management companies to illegally win etenders - large amounts of bribes running into crore(s) of rupees have exchanged hands using hawala channels - public funds meant for development activities have been diverted and siphoned off for personal illegal enrichment and for making illegal bribe payments - bogus and overbilling by the infra companies.
HELD THAT:- By the impugned judgment and order, while granting anticipatory bail the High Court has observed that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable with respect to the anticipatory bail applications/proceedings under Section 438 Cr.PC. For which the High Court has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of NIKESH TARACHAND SHAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [2017 (11) TMI 1336 - SUPREME COURT] In the case of THE ASST. DIRECTOR ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE VERSUS DR. V.C. MOHAN [2022 (1) TMI 511 - SUPREME COURT], this Court has specifically observed and held that it is the wrong understanding that in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah this Court has held that the rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable to the application under Section 438 Cr. PC. In the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan in which the decision of this Court in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah was pressed into service, it is specifically observed by this Court that it is one thing to say that Section 45 of the Act, 2002 to offences under the ordinary law would not get attracted but once the prayer for anticipatory bail is made in connection with offence under the Act, 2002, the underlying principles and rigours of Section 45 of the Act, must get triggered – although the application is under Section 438 Cr.PC. - the observations made by the High Court that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall not be applicable in connection with an application under Section 438 Cr.PC is just contrary to the decision in the case of Dr. V.C. Mohan and the same is on misunderstanding of the observations made in the case of Nikesh Tarachand Shah. Once the rigour under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 is unsustainable.
It can be seen that the High Court has not at all considered the nature of allegations and the seriousness of the offences alleged against respondent No. 1. As per the catena of decision of this Court, more particularly, observed in the case of P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] in case of economic offences, which are having an impact on the society, the Court must be very slow in exercising the discretion under Section 438 of Cr.PC.
The rigour of Section 45 of the Act, 2002 shall be applicable even with respect to the application under Section 438 Cr.PC and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court granting anticipatory bail to respondent No. 1 herein is unsustainable - appeal allowed.
....
|
9911796707
