|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 2064 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 317
Money Laundering - challenge to cognizance taken by the Special Judge (PMLA), Raipur, against the petitioner under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - offence is committed by a public servant or not - petitioner’s alleged act reasonably connect with the discharge of official duty or not.
Whether the offence is committed by a public servant? - HELD THAT:- The term public servant has been defined in Section 2 (28) of the Bharitya Nyay Sanhita, and it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was working as Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry in the State of Chhattisgarh and he is in the service of Central Government, therefore, he is public servant as defined under Section 2 (28) of the BNS.
Whether petitioner’s alleged act reasonably connect with the discharge of official duty? - HELD THAT:- A bare perusal of Section 197 Cr.P.C. shows that the essential conditions must be satisfied for the appreciation of Section 197 Cr.P.C. i.e.; (1) Offence mention therein must be committed by a public servant.; (2) The protection is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty - there must be connection between official duty with the alleged offence. Section 197 Cr.P.C. restrict its scope of operation to only those acts or actions which are done by a public servant in discharge of official duty.
Since Respondent/ ED has alleged that the Petitioner, who was the Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry at the time of commission of the alleged offences. The alleged offence is alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his duties as Joint Secretary of the Department of Commerce and Industry. Therefore, there is official nexus in doing the said act.
The ED knows very well that in this case prosecution sanction is mandatory to prosecute the petitioner. It is crystal clear that on the date of taking cognizance there was no prosecution sanction obtained by the ED and without posecution sanction learned Special Judge PMLA, Raipur has taken cognizance on 05.10.2024 against the petitioner which is illegal and bad in law and it deserves to be set aside.
The order dated 05/10/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (PMLA) Raipur whereby the cognizance has been taken in Prosecution Complaint dated 19/06/2024 sine qua to the petitioner is set aside. However, the respondent/ ED is granted liberty to take recourse to the concerned Trial Court for taking cognizance afresh against the petitioner. And, the learned Trial Court is directed to examine the sanction order produced by the respondent/ED before taking cognizance.
Conclusion - The petitioner is a public servant whose alleged acts are connected with his official duties, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution. The cognizance taken without such sanction is set aside, with liberty granted to the ED to seek fresh cognizance upon obtaining the required sanction.
The instant criminal revision stands allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 251
Money Laundering - challenge to Provisional Attachment Order - Whether the petitioner can challenge the provisional attachment order through a writ petition under Article 226, given that an appeal is pending before the appellate tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA? - HELD THAT:- By the impugned provisional order dated 07.03.2024, the bank accounts mentioned at serial Nos. 5, 6 & 10 of the notice dated 25.11.2021 are proposed to be attached under the provision of Section 5 of the Act and the same has been confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide order dated 18.07.2024. Against the order of adjudicating authority, an appeal before the appellate tribunal has been preferred by the petitioner and the appeal being No. 1661 of 2024 is pending before the appellate tribunal.
The writ petition challenging the provisional order dated 07.03.2024 is not maintainable, as the same is subject matter of the appeal before the appellate tribunal under Section 26 of PMLA.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 250
Money Laundering - Provisional Attachment Order - failure to supply reasons to believe with the notice - Section 8(1) of PMLA - HELD THAT:- The perusal of Section 8(1) shows that it does not require to record reasons to believe by the Adjudicating Authority before causing notice. What is required is that if the Adjudicating Authority has reasons to believe that any person has committed offence under Section 3 or is in possession of the proceeds of crime, he may serve a notice of not less than 30 days on such person calling him to indicate the sources of his income, earning or assets, out of which or by means of which he has acquired the property attached by the ED. While giving interpretation to the provision aforesaid, the Delhi High Court gave judgment in the case of J. Sekar [2018 (1) TMI 535 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the issue in reference to the various provisions of the Act of 2002 has been dealt with. It is, however, a fact that the operation of the order of Delhi High Court has been stayed by the Apex Court but the ratio propounded therein has been applied.
The impugned order of the Adjudicating Authority is set aside and the case remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for proceeding a fresh after supplying of reasons to believe for causing notice under Section 8(1) of the Act of 2002.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 186
Money Laundering - dismissal of application preferred by the Appellants seeking de-freezing of the Bank accounts of the Appellants - HELD THAT:- In view of the position taken by ED, it is made clear that there is no debit freeze on these bank accounts and the Appellants are free to operate their bank accounts in accordance with law.
ED shall write a communication to the respective banks within five working days, clarifying the above position as also attaching a copy of today’s order for the purposes of lifting the debit freeze.
The Appeals filed before the Tribunal challenging the attachment orders against these bank accounts shall, however, be decided on their own merits - Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 185
Money Laundering - provisional attachment of the property of the appellant - time limitation - impugned order was passed after a period of 190 days from the date of PAO - attachment of property when appellant is not an accused - Acquisition of property by using proceeds of crime or not.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, attachment order was confirmed beyond the period of 180 days. Thus, by operation of section 5(3) of the Act of 2002, it may cease to exist under normal circumstance. We have been deliberately referred to “normal circumstance” because small period intervening was affected by Covid-19 which was from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 and if the period aforesaid is excluded, the order of confirmation is within 180 days. Reasons of exclusion of the period is due to Covid-19 and in light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Suo-moto Petition No. 03/2020vide order dated 10.01.2022 [2022 (1) TMI 385 - SC ORDER]. The Apex Court’s order is to exclude the period of Covid-19 from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 for the purposes of litigation and even termination of the proceedings.
The issue was discussed and decided in the case of Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Bhubaneswar [2024 (10) TMI 227 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI], where it was held that 'the period from 15.03.2022 to 28.02.2022 has to excluded because till 28.02.2022 has been excluded by the Apex Court for termination of proceedings and from 1.03.2022, the impugned order was passed within 180 days.'
Attachment of property when appellant is not an accused - HELD THAT:- The issue was elaborately discussed by this Tribunal in the case of Sant Singh versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chandigarh [2024 (8) TMI 523 - APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SAFEMA AT NEW DELHI] after referring to the section 5(1) of the act of 2002 and the judgement of the Apex court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary Vs. Union of India [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)]. It was held if a person is in possession of the proceeds of crime, then a property can be attached even if he is not named as an accused.
Acquisition of property by using proceeds of crime or not - HELD THAT:- The appellant failed to prove the payment of Rs. 14,00,000/- to main accused, Shri Shankarlal Khandelwal in cash. While analyzing the account of Syndicate Bank, it was found that the appellant received Rs. 5,00,000/- while transfer of Rs. 14,00,000/- was received through RTGS from Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwal, the accused in the case. It was thereafter paid to M/s Shri GovindKripa Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., which was again a company owned by the accused and thereby proceeds of crime was routed and laundered through the appellant. In the light of statement of the appellant under Section 50 of the Act of 2002 and the material on record, appellant could not show the source to acquire the property in question which otherwise was out of the proceeds of crime. The transfer of money by Shri Shankar Lal Khandelwal to the appellant was to make tainted money to be untainted and thereby it was got transferred by layering of the proceeds of crime.
Conclusion - i) The 180-day period for confirming a PAO can exclude time affected by the Covid-19 pandemic. ii) Attachment under the PMLA is not limited to properties held by accused individuals; it extends to any person in possession of proceeds of crime. iii) The property in question is acquired using funds that are proceeds of crime, justifying its attachment.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 112
Money Laundering - it was held by High Court that 'In the light of the statutory frame work of the PMLA and the application filed under Section 50 of the Act, this Court is of the considered view that the application was not maintainable before the learned Magistrate, since the Court did not have the power to direct recording of statements for it to become a record under the PMLA, the order which is passed by the Court which did not have a jurisdiction to even consider any application under the PMLA, is rendered unsustainable.'
HELD THAT:- Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it is not proposed to entertain this petition. However, the question of law, if any, involved is kept open.
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 111
Money laundering - Seeking grant of bail - misappropriation of scholarship funds - scam involving the allocation of scholarships to SC, ST and OBC students, under the Post Matric Scheme - non-supply of the copy of the ‘reasons to believe’ - it was held by High Court that 'The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for bail at this stage. The Court's decision is based on the ongoing investigation, the nature of the allegations, and the unsatisfied twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA.'
HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order(s) passed by the High Court. However, insofar as the petitioner(s) who have received interim relief from the High Court, it is inclined to give them four weeks time for surrendering.
SLP dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 110
Money Laundering - predicate offence - time limitation - despite the expiry of period of more than 9 years, the predicate offence agency has failed to file the charge sheet - HELD THAT:- The facts on record shows that an FIR was registered against the appellant on 14.12.2016 for the offence u/s 409,420,120-B IPC read with Section 7,13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The ECIR was then recorded finding a predicate offence against the appellant. It proceeded with the investigation and prosecution complaint has already been filed. Thus, there is no delay on the part of the respondent to complete the investigation.
So far as the alleged delay of predicate agency to complete the investigation is concerned, we cannot comment on it in absence of the predicate agency to be a party. Learned counsel for the appellant otherwise failed to refer to any provision or the judgment to substantiate his argument on delay in completion of the investigation by the police and its effect on the investigation under the Act of 2002. In fact, no provision or the judgment could be shown in reference to the issue raised by the appellant. Thus, no order made on the delay because it cannot be analyzed in absence of the predicate agency as a party.
There are no force in the only argument raised by the counsel for the appellant for challenge to the impugned order. Accordingly, the appeals would fail and are dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 14
Money Laundering - seeking grant of interim bail due to the critical medical condition of his father - HELD THAT:- Nominal Roll dated 27.03.2025 reflects that the Petitioner has no criminal antecedents and his jail conduct during the last one year is ‘Satisfactory’ - However, today the condition of the Father of the Petitioner is stated to be critical and deteriorating very quickly. The factum of his Father being on a ventilator in the ICU has been verified by the Respondent as also the medical condition of the Father being critical.
In these prevailing circumstances and on humanitarian grounds, the Petitioner is granted interim Bail for a period of 10 days from the date of his release, subject to Petitioner's fulfilment of conditions imposed - the petition is disposed of.
-
2025 (4) TMI 13
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - predicate offence - proceeds of crime - preparation of fake deeds, falsification of government records and tampering with revenue registers to acquire and dispose of landed properties as a member of syndicate - applicability of principles of parity - HELD THAT:- In the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], it has been held that the Authority under the 2002 Act, is to prosecute a person for offence of money-laundering only if it has reason to believe, which is required to be recorded in writing that the person is in possession of “proceeds of crime”. Only if that belief is further supported by tangible and credible evidence indicative of involvement of the person concerned in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime, action under the Act can be taken to forward for attachment and confiscation of proceeds of crime and until vesting thereof in the Central Government, such process initiated would be a standalone process. So far as the issue of grant of bail under Section 45 of the Act, 2002 is concerned, at paragraph-412 of the judgment rendered in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. it has been held therein by making observation that whatever form the relief is couched including the nature of proceedings, be it under Section 438 of the 1973 Code or for that matter, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, the underlying principles and rigors of Section 45 of the 2002 must come into play and without exception ought to be reckoned to uphold the objectives of the 2002 Act, which is a special legislation providing for stringent regulatory measures for combating the menace of money-laundering.
It has come during investigation that the petitioner along with other accused persons was involved in preparation of fake deed as admitted by co-accused Afsar Ali mentioned at para 9.20 of the prosecution complaint. Further as per para 9.35 & 9.38 of the prosecution complaint where CDR has been reproduced the petitioner was acquainted with other co-accused and also as per paras 9.45, 9.46 & 9.48 of the prosecution complaint, substantial amount was transferred in the account of this petitioner.
The offence of money laundering as contemplated in Section 3 of the PMLA has been elaborately dealt with by the three Judge Bench in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary, in which it has been observed that Section 3 has a wider reach. The offence as defined captures every process and activity in dealing with the proceeds of crime, directly or indirectly, and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy to constitute an act of money laundering. Of course, the authority of the Authorised Officer under the Act to prosecute any person for the offence of money laundering gets triggered only if there exist proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (u) of the Act and further it is involved in any process or activity.
The three Judge Bench the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rohit Tandon vs. Directorate of Enforcement [2017 (11) TMI 779 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the statements of witnesses recorded by Prosecution – ED are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50. Such statements may make out a formidable case about the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence of money laundering - In the instant case, it has been found that during the course of investigation from the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 50 that the petitioner had indulged, knowingly as the party and is actually involved in all the activities connected with the offence of money laundering.
It is pertinent to mention here that the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act is an independent offence regarding the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence. The offence of money laundering is not dependent or linked to the date on which the scheduled offence or predicate offence has been committed. The relevant date is the date on which the person indulges in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. Thus, the involvement of the person in any of the criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the Act.
The power of the Court to grant bail is further conditioned upon the satisfaction of the twin conditions prescribed under Section 45(1) (i) and (ii) PMLA. While undertaking this exercise, the Court is required to take a prima facie view on the basis of materials collected during investigation. The expression used in Section 45 of PMLA are “reasonable grounds for believing” which means that the Court has to find, from a prima facie view of the materials collected during investigation that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has not committed the offence and that there is no likelihood of him committing an offence while on bail.
This Court while considering the prayer for regular bail has taken into consideration that though the Court is not sitting in appeal on the order passed by learned court since this Court is exercising the power of Section 439 Cr.P.C but only for the purpose of considering the view which has been taken by learned court while rejecting the prayer for bail, this Court is also in agreement with the said view based upon the material surfaced in course of investigation.
Grounds of parity - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in Tarun Kumar Vs. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement [2023 (11) TMI 904 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that parity is not the law and while applying the principle of parity, the Court is required to focus upon the role attached to the accused whose application is under consideration.
The allegation against the present petitioner is entirely different and as per the prosecution complaint it is evident that the present petitioner has been found in preparation of fake deeds, falsification of government records and tampering with revenue registers to acquire and dispose of landed properties as a member of syndicate - Applying the principle of parity, this Court is of the view as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Tarun Kumar that the benefit of parity is to be given if the facts/involvement of the petitioner is identical to the persons with whom parity is being claimed.
This Court, on the basis of the discussion of the involvement of the petitioner, vis-à-vis, the other co-accused person, is of the view that the case of the petitioner is quite distinguishable to that of the case of the co-accused/petitioner of B.A no.4892 of 2024, therefore it is considered view of this Court that it is not a fit case for application of the issue of parity herein.
This Court, in view of the aforesaid material available against the petitioner, is of the view, that in such a grave nature of offence, which is available on the face of the material, applying the principle of grant of bail wherein the principle of having prima facie case is to be followed, the nature of allegation since is grave and as such, it is not a fit case of grant of bail - this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has miserably failed to satisfy this Court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offences. On the contrary, there is sufficient material collected by the respondent-ED to show that he is prima facie guilty of the alleged offences.
Conclusion - i) The offence of money laundering is independent of the scheduled offence, and the petitioner can be prosecuted under the PMLA without being accused of the predicate offence. ii) The principle of parity does not apply as the petitioner's involvement was distinct from the co-accused who was granted bail. iii) The conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA were not satisfied, as the petitioner failed to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing he was not guilty and was unlikely to reoffend.
This Court is of the view that it is not a case where the prayer for bail is to be granted, as such, the instant application stands dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1452
Seeking grant of regular bail - Money Laundering - scheduled/predicate offence - proceeds of crime - collecting commissions and supplying unaccounted liquor to government liquor shops - twin conditions under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, are satisfied or not - delay in trial proceedings - HELD THAT:- It appears that the applicant had actively participated in the commission of predicate offence; had acquired proceeds of crime and had substantial share in proceeds of unaccounted liquor cannot be ignored. The investigation against 11 persons including the applicant is complete and three prosecution complaints against 11 accused persons spanning to nearly 20,000 pages with over 30 witnesses and 250 documents have been filed by the investigating agency and the investigation is going on. Despite the alleged huge scam, prosecution complaint has been filed against 11 persons. Even as per allegations made in the complaint filed by the ED, role of other individuals have also been surfaced. + There is no attachment of property against accused persons being distillers despite quantifying the same at over 200 crores and no proceedings under Section 8 of the PC Act has been initiated against them. Though it is true that the applicant has suffered long period of incarceration and the trial has not yet commenced and is not likely to conclude but the right to bail in cases of delay, coupled with incarceration for a long period, depending on the nature of the allegations, should be read into Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 45 of the PML Act. there is substantial material indicating a strong nexus between the applicant and the other accused persons in the commission of the crime.
Records show that the grounds of arrest was communicated to the applicant by the ED in writing. Thus, without giving any observation as to whether the statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA are admissible in evidence, but their thorough consideration should be reserved for the trial court. It emphasized that at the bail stage, these statements can be examined to ascertain whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant is not guilty. There is a difference between the admissibility of a statement of an accused recorded under Section 50 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and its evidentiary value.
It can be foreseen that while the High Court in the specific facts and circumstances (where there was prima facie material against the petitioner) came to the conclusion that mere possession of proceeds of crime and upholding such proceeds as untainted would be sufficient to invoke the provisions of PMLA, however, the ratio of the said judgment may have the potential to have an unintended fallout in a different set of facts. Depending on the facts of the case, such an interpretation may include persons who might have no genuine knowledge and connection with the predicate offence and/ or the tainted money circulated by the actual accused persons and may have to go through the rigours of trial for no fault - Mens rea is a critical ingredient for any criminal offence and therefore requires its presence in any action or consequence which arises out of or in relation to an offence. It is important that to prosecute someone for mere possession of purported proceeds of crime, there should be an equal burden on the prosecution to prove at least a prima facie link to the proceeds of crime as defined under the Act.
Money laundering is understood to encompass a scenario in which an individual commits an offense outlined in the PMLA schedule, leading to the generation of property. This property subsequently qualifies as the proceeds of the crime. Furthermore, the individual engaged in activities such as concealment, possession, or utilization of said proceeds of crime, shall be deemed to have committed the offense of money laundering - the quantification of the Proceeds of Crime involves a multifaceted approach. It begins with the identification of initial assets stemming from criminal activity, subsequently encompassing any assets obtained through these initial proceeds.
Conclusion - It is thus held that in the investigation conducted during the predicate offence, the applicant being the orchestrator of the entire liquor scam in the State of CG, was involved in money laundering and proceeds of crime along with other co-accused therefore, the entitlement of the applicant to get bail under PMLA, 2002, is not acceptable and considering the entirety of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant is unable to satisfy twin conditions for grant of bail under Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002, as such, it is not a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant for the reasons.
The prayer for bail made by the applicant under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) read with Section 45 of the PMLA, for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002 is hereby rejected.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1402
Seeking grant of regular bail - prolonged detention - right to speedy trial - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - alleged AgustaWestland VVIP helicopter scam - routing illicit funds through shell companies - alleged bribe payments through middlemen - HELD THAT:- This Court notes that the learned counsel for the applicant primarily argued the present bail application on the ground of delay in concluding investigation and consequently the trial, and placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereby the applicant herein has been granted bail in the predicate offence – on the ground of delay in trial itself - this Court has given consideration to the material placed on record as well as the stage of the investigation and the fact that in the present case, though the applicant has been in judicial custody for more than six years, investigation in the case has yet not been concluded, charges have not been framed and the trial has not begun.
This Court while deciding the present bail application, in the backdrop of the fact that applicant has been granted bail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the predicate offence, has considered the issue of grant of bail to the applicant viz-a-viz the delay in conclusion of investigation and initiation of trial, especially the fact that the applicant has almost completed the period of judicial custody equivalent to the maximum punishment attracted in the present case i.e. under Section 4 of PMLA. Considering these circumstances, the merits of the allegations against the applicant were not considered at this stage.
In cases under PMLA, while the legislature has incorporated stringent provisions such as Section 45 to regulate the grant of bail, by prescribing the twin test, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also held that such provisions must be harmoniously interpreted with Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It has also been held that the statutory bar under such bail provisions cannot be permitted to override an accused’s right to speedy trial, nor can statutory restrictions be construed as a tool for indefinite incarceration.
In Prem Prakash v. Union of India [2024 (8) TMI 1412 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the fundamental right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and held that keeping persons behind bars for unlimited periods of time, in the hope of speedy completion of trial, would deprive the fundamental right of persons under Article 21.
This Court is of the view that while Section 45 of PMLA imposes stringent conditions for the grant of bail, constitutional courts, including the Hon’ble Supreme Court, have also emphasized time and again that this provision cannot be interpreted in a manner, to confine the accused in judicial custody for an indefinite period of time. As noted above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in multiple decisions, has held that the right to bail must be read into such provisions where there is an inordinate delay in the completion of trial which effectively converts pre-trial custody into a punitive sentence.
The present case presents an exceptional situation where the applicant has already been in custody for over six years and two months, yet the trial has not even commenced due to the incomplete investigation. Such prolonged incarceration, without any foreseeable conclusion of trial, would infringe upon the applicant’s fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Section 436A of the Cr.P.C. is a statutory safeguard designed to prevent excessive and disproportionate pre-trial detention. It provides that an accused, who has undergone detention for a period equivalent to one-half of the maximum sentence prescribed for the offence, shall ordinarily be released on bail unless the court, for reasons recorded in writing, directs otherwise. In the context of offences under PMLA, where the maximum sentence is ordinarily seven years, the one-half threshold would be three and a half years. Although the proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C. allows the court to extend the period of detention beyond the one-half threshold based on the facts of the case, yet such extended detention cannot be indefinite and the Courts must assess the necessity of continued incarceration in light of the specific facts, the stage of the trial, and the overall interests of justice.
While the proviso to Section 436A allows courts to extend detention beyond this period in exceptional circumstances, the present case is not one where the applicant’s custody is only marginally beyond the halfway mark. Instead, the applicant has been in custody for over six years and two months – which is alarmingly close to the maximum punishment – without even being adjudicated guilty. It was pointed out that more than 100 witnesses are to be examined in the present case and there are more than 1000 documents relied upon by the prosecution. Given that the trial is unlikely to conclude before the applicant completes even seven years in jail, further incarceration would render the entire purpose of a trial meaningless.
In this Court’s opinion, the prolonged incarceration of the accused, of about six years and two months, and the fact that investigation is not yet complete and trial has not yet begun, and there are more than 100 witness to be examined in this case, would entitle him to grant of regular bail, thereby overriding the statutory bar under Section 45 of PMLA and proviso to Section 436A of Cr.P.C.
Considering the period of incarceration of about six years and two months undergone by the applicant, and in view of the fact that he has also been granted bail in the case pertaining to predicate offence by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation has not been completed and the trial has not even begun, and considering that there seems to be no possibility of trial in this case concluding too within the remaining duration of the maximum prescribed sentence under Section 4 of PMLA, inasmuch as the same has not even begun as of now, this Court is inclined to grant regular bail to the present applicant, on furnishing a personal bond and surety in the sum of ₹5,00,000/- each and on surrendering the passport before the learned Trial Court, which be not released without permission of this Court, considering that investigation qua the present applicant is still pending.
Conclusion - The applicant's prolonged detention without trial violates his right to a speedy trial under Article 21.
Application allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1354
Condonation of delay of 708 days in filling the Appeal - Money Laundering - challenge to provisional attachment order - sufficient cause for delay or not - merger of ING Vysya Bank with Kotak Mahindra Bank - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the order, confirming the provisional attachment was passed on 01st June, 2016 and it is the admitted position that the same was received on 03rd June, 2016 by the bank - In the opinion of this Court, the merger of the Transferor Bank (ING Vysya Bank) with Kotak Mahindra Bank in April, 2015, is a justifiable reason and cause that could have resulted in the delay.
Upon the perusal of Section 26 of the PMLA, it would show that after the initial period of 45 days, there is no outer limit prescribed and the question would be whether there is sufficient cause or not - firstly, there is no outer limit and there is also no negative stipulation that delay beyond a particular period would not be condonable.
A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in Directorate of Enforcement v. O P Nahar [2022 (5) TMI 1362 - DELHI HIGH COURT] while adjudicating an appeal from an order of the Appellate Tribunal wherein the appeal under Section 26 of the PMLA was rejected due to delay of 204 days in its filing. The Court condoned the delay and inter alia held that the Appellant therein sufficiently explained the delay for not filing the appeal within the prescribed period.
This Court takes into consideration the fact that the Appellant is a bank and since it was going through the merger process, it cannot be said that the delay is completely inexplicable. Mergers of banks would involve complicated processes, technological integration, customer integration, staff related issues, compliances etc., have to be put in place. This could have delayed the filing of the appeal due to various procedural and administrative reasons.
Conclusion - The merger process provides a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits.
The merger process provided a sufficient cause for the delay, thereby condoning it and restoring the appeal for adjudication on merits - The appeal shall now be restored to its original number before the Appellate Tribunal and shall be adjudicated on merits in accordance with law.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1353
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Provisional Attachment Order - diversion of depositors amount to personal accounts routed through company’s bank accounts for wrongful gain and amassed huge movable and immovable assets by utilizing illegally gained money of depositors - impact of a civil court decree in favor of the appellants regarding the title and possession of the disputed property - HELD THAT:- The property in question was existing in the name of Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. of Hyderabad on the payment of consideration of Rs.5 Crores and other amount of Rs. 2 Crore paid by M/s Heera Gold Exim Ltd. and Rs.3.48 Crore by M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. much prior to the decree dated 19.11.2018. The statement given above shows that the property in question was existing in the name of M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. out of proceeds of crime much prior to the decree and was not challenged in the suit and M/s Heera Retails Pvt. Ltd. was not even made party to the suit.
Apart from the Civil Suit, the appellant even preferred a Writ Petition No. 15019/2019 to challenge the attachment of the property under the Act of 1999. The Writ Petition was disposed of with liberty to the appellant to avail alternate remedy under Section 7(3) of the Act of 1999. The appellant accordingly approached the Metropolitan Sessions Judge to challenge the order of attachment under the Act of 1999. The learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge allowed the application preferred by the appellant. It was based on the Civil Decree ignoring the fact as to whom it would be binding and how the decree was taken by the appellant. The Metropolitan Sessions Judge though took note of the fact that the property was conveyed in favour of M/s Heera Group of companies who was none else but accused. It ignored consequence of sale deed in favour of M/s Heera Group of companies which has purchased the property out of the proceeds of crime. It was made party to the civil suit yet, an order was passed against the interest of the company holding the property. The accused was otherwise not interested to pursue the claim because in that case, it would have been auctioned in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court.
In the instance case, M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd, was not party to the suit, despite purchase of the property and whose sale deed was never challenged. The decree cannot operate against it. Since the property was owned by M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of main accused Smt. Nowhera Shaik, we do not find any illegality in the attachment as the decree of the Civil Court was not binding on the group company of accused M/s Heera Retails Pvt. Ltd. The Apex Court in the case of Niyamat Ali Molla Vs. Sonargon Housing Co-operative Society Ltd. and Ors. [2007 (10) TMI 616 - SUPREME COURT] held that persons not parties to the suit would not be bound by the decree.
The claim of the appellants based on collusive decree by City Civil Court cannot be accepted against others than party to the suit. It is more so when it is going against the sale deed executed in favour of the accused’s Company M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. and remain unchallenged. No suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed against the said Company and even the sale deed in favour of M/s Neelanchal Technocrats Pvt. Ltd.
The claim of the appellants is based on the Civil Suitwhere M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. was not a party. The decree in the Civil Suit binds only the parties and not the others. The property came to the accused’s company pursuant to the sale deed in its favour in the year 2016 by M/s Neelanchal Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. who was holding it under the deed and whose title and sale deed was never challenged by the appellants even while filing a suit to claim their right. The execution of sale deed was in the knowledge of the appellant as is coming out from the suit yet it was not challenged. The accused colluded with the appellants after registration of the FIR in the year 2012. The suit was not contested by M/s Neelanchal Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. after a sale deed in favour of M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. The property of the accused M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd. has been attached as it was purchased out of the proceeds of crime. Thus, there is no case to cause interference in the impugned orders.
The order produced before this Tribunal is dated 28.03.2023 where a detailed order was passed for settling the dues of the investors and therein it was made clear that the property attached by the ED can be released for realization of the dues if the prospective purchasers are willing to deposit the amount of Rs. 641 crores and in that case, the attachment of the ED would be lifted but leaving the parties to take remedies for their respective rights - The subsequent order produced before us is dated 11.11.2024. The reference of the order of the Apex Court has been given to clarify that confirmation of attachment would not in any way affect the investors for realization of the amount, rather the order passed by us would also remain subject to the further direction of the Apex Court in pending cases. The detailed order is, however, passed by this Tribunal to clarify the claim of the appellants. This is not a case to cause interference in the orders.
Conclusion - The decree cannot operate against a person who was not party to the suit. Since the property was owned by M/s Heera Retail Pvt. Ltd., a group company of the main accused Smt. Nowhera Shaik, there are no illegality in the attachment as the decree of the Civil Court was not binding on the group company of accused M/s Heera Retails Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1252
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Maintainability of petition - petition has been filed through the power of attorney holder and the affidavit sworn by the power of attorney of the petitioner, which is not maintainable - Money Laundering - Issuance of non-bailable warrant (open-ended) against the petitioner - Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - issuance of summons under Section 50 of the PMLA, 2002.
Maintainability of petition - petition has been filed through the power of attorney holder and the affidavit sworn by the power of attorney of the petitioner, which is not maintainable - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the petitioner is at Dubai who executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr. Khemraj Sinha, resident of Adivasi Colony, Kushalpur, Raipur (C.G.), who sworn an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition. The respondent/ED has relied upon the judgment of Amrinder Singh @ Raja (supra) and in Para 7 and 8, it would rely upon the judgment of Amit Ahuja [2010 (5) TMI 962 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] and T.C. Mathai [1999 (3) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT].
There is nothing on record to show that the power of attorney of the petitioner is disabled by filing affidavit in support of the petition or the petition filed through power of attorney is not maintainable. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition through power of attorney holder is not sustainable and hereby rejected.
Applicability and procedural compliance of summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA, 2002 to a person residing outside India - HELD THAT:- When the ED found sufficient evidence against the petitioner that he actively involved in the illegal operation of Mahadev Operation Book, he issued the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 to the address of the petitioner available with the ED and asked to appear on 02.09.2023 and 04.09.2023. Since the petitioner did not join the investigation, the ED apply under Section 70 of CRPC for issuance of non-bailable warrant (open-ended) against the petitioner on 04.09.2023. The petitioner had obtained citizenship of a small island nation Vanuatu, which does not have any extradition treaty or arrangement with India, clearly evident that the petitioner did not intend to join the investigation and therefore, the application for issuance of non-bailable warrant was filed before the learned Special Court. The learned Special Court has ample power to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused when he failed to cooperate and deliberately avoided the process of law.
It is apparent from the reading of Section 50 of PMLA-2002 as well as the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that the power conferred upon the ED by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA-2002 empowers them to summon any person whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any record during the course of investigation or proceeding under the PMLA-2002. The persons, so summoned, are also bound to attend in person or through authorized agent and are required to state truth upon any subject concerning which such person is being examined or is expected to make statement and to produce document, as may be required in the case.
In the present case, the investigation conducted by the State Police in FIR No. 206 of 2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime, Vishakhapatnam Commissionorate under the scheduled offences, which revealed that the money made via the app was transferred to different accounts till it was siphoned off to a person named Sourabh Chandrakar, a native of Chhattisgarh, who presently lives in Dubai - The FIR was one of scheduled offences included in the ECIR recorded in respect of the petitioner. Statements of the close friends and associates of the petitioner were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 and they disclosed that the petitioner is one of the main promoters of Mahadev Online Book and this was further corroborated by the digital evidence gathered during investigation.
Conclusion - Considering all these evidences, learned Special Court, on being application made by the ED, issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner, and the learned Special Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to issue said non-bailable warrant. It is settled law that the provisions of PMLA-2002 are not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence, but it would apply to any person if he is involved in any process or activities connected with the proceeds of crime and as per the investigation, the petitioner was found involved in possession of proceeds of crime, emanating out of the operation of Mahadev Online Book.
There are no ground to disagree with the order dated 04.09.2023, passed by the learned Special Court (PMLA-2002), by which the non-bailable warrant (open-ended) is issued against the petitioner and to interfere with the same - petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1251
Seeking grant of Regular bail - petitioner qualifies as 'sick or infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 or not - petitioner is 86 years old and is suffering from multiple ailments - Applicability of Section 45 of PMLA - requirement to fulfil triple test - delay in trial - HELD THAT:- A purposive interpretation of the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA indicates that it was included as a lenient measure to provide ‘relaxation’ for a sick or infirm individual, as mentioned in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the PMLA.
What is the level of sickness that qualifies an accused as ‘sick’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA? - HELD THAT:- While there is no strict formula to determine the level of illness required for bail under this proviso, the general guideline is that when the sickness is serious enough to pose a threat to life and requires medical assistance and treatment which is specialized and unavailable in jail facilities, the accused should be granted bail under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA. However, this is not an exhaustive criterion and each case should be evaluated based on its unique facts and circumstances.
In the present case, the medical board of AIIMS, Delhi constituted vide Order dated 18.09.2023 submitted its report on 04.12.2023. The medical assessment of the petitioner by the board was conducted on 18.10.2023 and 22.10.2023 - A division bench of this Court in Sandeep Aggarwal v. Priyanka Aggarwal, [2021 (12) TMI 1431 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has observed that the courts cannot sit in appeal of the opinion of the medical board as the judges are not experts in medical fields. Thus, an opinion of doctors who are experts cannot be supplanted by a court overstepping its jurisdiction.
Thus, the petitioner is not ‘sick’ to fall within the ambit of proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA since the petitioner can be treated in jail for the ailment as categorically opined by the medical board.
Admittedly, the petitioner, aged 86, suffers from cognitive impairment, pseudodementia and recurrent dizziness, along with a history of falls. A medical board from AIIMS has recommended that he requires constant monitoring due to the risk of falls. Given his diagnosed subjective cognitive decline, it is clear that he needs supervision throughout the day, which cannot be adequately provided by jail authorities. Furthermore, considering his age, the likelihood of improvement in his age-related infirmities is minimal and it is expected that his condition will continue to decline - beneficial legislation in favour of a class of persons, which is reflective of constitutional spirit, should not be considered narrowly and must be given a liberal interpretation. Thus, the aforementioned infirmities in a senile stage combined with the need for constant ‘monitoring’ coupled with frequent falls and forgetfulness makes the petitioner ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA.
The petitioner falls within the ambit of ‘infirm’ under the proviso to section 45 (1) of PMLA and thus, he is not required to meet the twin test of section 45 (1) of PMLA.
Requirement of fulfilment of triple test of Flight risk, Influencing any witness and Tampering with evidence - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has been released on interim bail since 08.08.2022 on medical grounds and there are no allegations of misuse of liberty by him while on bail - As regards the flight risk, adequate restrictions can be imposed upon the petitioner - the petitioner meets the triple test for grant of bail.
Delay in trial - HELD THAT:- There are 17 accused persons, 66 companies, 121 witnesses and 77,812 pages of documents plus enormous digital data which needs to be analysed in the present case. Thus, there is no likelihood of the trial to be concluded in the near future - In the case of Pankaj Kumar Tiwari v. Directorate of Enforcement, [2024 (10) TMI 1351 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a co-ordinate bench of this Court observed that the right of the accused to speedy trial is an important aspect which the courts must keep in contemplation while deciding a bail application as the same is higher sacrosanct constitutional right, which ought to take precedence.
Conclusion - i) The petitioner falls within the ambit of 'infirm' under the proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, exempting him from the stringent bail conditions typically required under this section. ii) The petitioner satisfies the triple test for bail, as there is no substantial evidence of flight risk, witness influence, or evidence tampering. iii) The delay in trial proceedings, coupled with the petitioner's right to a speedy trial, warrants the granting of bail.
The petition is allowed and the petitioner is granted bail, subject to fulfilment of conditions imposed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1250
Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023 - If the complaint in regard to a scheduled offence has been quashed, the complaint under Section 3 & 4 of the PMLA, 2002 pertaining to some scheduled offence is maintainable or not? - HELD THAT:- Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013 stipulates punishment in the case of fraud involving an amount of at least Rs. 10 Lakh. An offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, is a scheduled offence for the purposes of the PMLA, 2002 and as per Paragraph 29 of the schedule appended to PMLA, 2002, an offence under Section 447, which stipulates punishment for fraud, is a scheduled offence - The expression “scheduled offence” has been defined in Section 2(1)(y). This provision assumes significance as it has direct link with the definition of “proceeds of crime”. In that, the property derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to notified offences, termed as scheduled offence, is regarded as tainted property and dealing with such property in any manner is an offence of money-laundering. The Schedule is in three parts, namely, Part A, B and C. Part A of the Schedule consists of 29 paragraphs. These paragraphs deal with respective enactments and the offences specified thereunder which are regarded as scheduled offences. Similarly, Part B deals with offence under the Customs Act specifically and Part C is in relation to offence of cross-border implications.
The Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)] in Para-107 observed that a property derived directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence would be liable for prosecution under the provisions of the PMLA, 2002. The Apex Court further held that the explanation, which is added to Section 2(1)(u) and which provides for definition of proceeds of crime, does not travel beyond the intent of tracking and reaching up to the property derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a schedule offence.
The conclusion which has been arrived at by the Apex Court makes it abundantly clear that the property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, can be regarded as proceeds of crime and other property, which has no nexus with any scheduled offence, cannot be brought within the ambit of the proceeds of crime.
It is clear that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court concluded that the prosecution launched under Section 447 of the Companies Act as was an attempt to apply statutory provision with retrospective effect, which was not permissible and therefore, concluded that the prosecution was illegal. Even the co-ordinate Bench proceeded ahead to label the prosecution to be malicious. The Court also concluded that upon due consideration of the allegations as set out in the FIR, if the offence registered is not formulated and the prosecution is considered to be malicious, the proceedings can be quashed.
Conclusion - The proceedings under the PMLA, 2002, could not be maintained against the applicant due to the quashment of the predicate offence under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1189
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Scheduled offences - attachment of bank accounts, movable as well as immpovable properties - reasons to believe - When the alleged proceeds of crime already stand seized by another law enforcement authority, i.e., the DRI, and same are in its possession, and therefore wholly outside the control and reach of the appellants, how could the respondent Directorate have justifiably entertained the reason to believe under the Second Proviso to section 5(1) that if such property is not attached immediately, the non- attachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under the Act? - HELD THAT:- The only offences that have been made out against the appellants are the offences under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(A) which are in relation to the foreign gold bars and biscuits valued at 13.56 crores which were seized by the DRI. The said value matches exactly with the value of movable properties recovered and seized by DRI. The material on record, therefore, does not reveal that there are any allegations in respect of any other scheduled offence(s) against any of the appellants herein. Insofar as the offences under Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) and 135(1)(b)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 are concerned, the property involved in the said offence is already under seizure by the DRI and attachment by the ED. Further, the confiscation thereof has also been proposed in the Prosecution Complaint under the PMLA, 2002 which remains pending.
As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT (LB)], the respondent Directorate could not have assumed that any other scheduled offence(s) were committed by the appellants and proceeds were derived therefrom and attached property over above the seized gold, even if the same were found to out of unexplained sources. Unexplained investment in properties may no doubt be actionable under the Income-tax Act or other laws, but no action under PMLA, 2002 could have been initiated against the same based on assumption that because they were found to in excess of the known sources of income, the same were necessarily derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence.
Conclusion - The attachment under PMLA can extend to properties not directly linked to the scheduled offence and properties of non-accused persons if connected to proceeds of crime. However, attachment cannot exceed the value of the alleged proceeds without evidence of additional criminal activity.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1104
Money Laundering - Challenge to detention/arrest of the petitioner - question to validity of the arrest said to be not in consonance with the provision of Section 19 (1) of the PML Act, 2002 since the grounds of arrest has not been supplied at the time of arrest of the petitioner in writing, rather, the grounds of arrest were for the first time supplied on 10.11.2024 along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent - HELD THAT:- In the first FIR, six charge sheets have been filed. More than 2000 accused have been named in the charge sheets. 550 witnesses have been named. In the case of the second FIR, there are 14 accused named in the chargesheet. In connection with this FIR, 24 witnesses have been cited. In the third FIR, 24 accused have been named in the charge sheet and 50 prosecution witnesses have been cited. The offences alleged in the aforementioned crimes are mainly under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 has been invoked.
These offences are scheduled offences within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the PMLA. Therefore, relying on the final reports filed in aforementioned scheduled offences, for an offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (for short “ECIR”) bearing ECIR No. MDSZO/21/2021 on 29th July 2021.
Consequently, the appellant was arrested on 14th June 2023 in connection with the said ECIR and was remanded to judicial custody. A complaint was filed for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, which is punishable under Section 4, on 12th August 2023. The appellant is the only accused named in the complaint. Cognizance has been taken based on the complaint by the Special Court under the PMLA. The scheduled offences cases have been transferred to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu (Special MPMLA Court), Chennai.
The Hon’ble Apex Court while taking note of the settled principle that the stringent provisions regarding the grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of the PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate the accused without trial for an unreasonably long time has allowed the appeal and direction has been passed that the appellant shall be enlarged on bail till the final disposal of the case.
The provisions of Section 167(2) of the Code deals with both types of remand i.e. “judicial remand” and “police remand”. The police have been given a right to apply before the Magistrate concerned for giving the accused in police custody and on being satisfied of adequate grounds the Magistrate may grant police remand of the accused for a specific period not beyond first fifteen days and later on, he can authorise only judicial detention of the accused till 90 to 60 days, as the case may be. Sections 209 and 309 of the Code deal with judicial custody during inquiry and trial - So far as authorisation of police custody of accused under Section 167 (2) is concerned it is legislative mandate that in no way the detention of the accused in police custody can be authorised for any time after expiry of the period of first fifteen days' remand. The Magistrate may allow detention other than custody in police till 90/60 days, as the case may be.
The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, special investigation cell-I Vs. Anupam J. Kulkarni [1992 (5) TMI 191 - SUPREME COURT] has observed that the Magistrate is competent to authorise detention of any accused in police custody for a specific period on adequate grounds only for the first fifteen days and that detention in police custody or judicial custody or vice versa can be authorised only within first fifteen days. After fifteen days' detention the accused cannot be sent to police custody at all except in other cases in which remand of first fifteen days has not yet started.
The purpose of remand as postulated under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner.
Admittedly, the writ petitioner has challenged order dated 09.06.2023 but has not questioned the illegality and propriety of order dated 08.06.2023 meaning thereby the writ petitioner is having no grievance with respect to the issue of remand dated 08.06.2023 otherwise said order would have been challenged by the writ petitioner. It means, the writ petitioner has accepted the remand order and has not challenged the order of remand rather he has chosen to prefer application under Sections 439 and 440 Cr.P.C before the Court of Sessions on merit by denying the allegation as referred in the ECIR by filing Misc. Cri. Application No. 1915 of 2023 for grant of bail, which was dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2023 by learned Special Judge, CBI-cum-Special Judge under PMLA, Ranchi.
The moment the petitioner has shown no grievance with respect to any of the issues even the issue of arrest by raising the ground that he is not knowing as to on what ground he has been arrested rather he in each and every page has endorsed by putting his signature and gave note that he read over the content of the ground of arrest and did not shown any dissatisfaction.
This Court is not hesitant in coming to the conclusion that the writ petitioner was having no grievance with respect to the issue of remand order dated 08.06.2023. Had the remand order dated 08.06.2023 have any infirmities, the writ petitioner would have made objection to that effect showing his dissatisfaction in the application which was filed before the Court having the jurisdiction for the purpose of remand of the present petitioner but admittedly that has not been done.
This Court in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as has been discussed herein above, is of the view that in view of confinement of prayer, the writ petition is required to be considered only with respect to the propriety/impropriety of order dated 09.06.2023 and in view of discussions made, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for showing interference in order dated 09.06.2023.
Conclusion - i) The petitioner could not challenge the arrest order after confining the writ petition to the remand order, as recorded in the judicial order dated 04.10.2024. ii) The remand order dated 09.06.2023 was valid, as the petitioner was informed of the grounds of arrest, and the procedural requirements for remand were met. iii) The petitioner failed to establish grounds for interference with the remand order dated 09.06.2023.
Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (3) TMI 1067
Seeking grant of interim bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, due to the alleged medical conditions of his family members and the inability of his wife - it was held by High Court that 'there is no ground to enlarge the applicant on interim bail.'
HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court. However, the High Court is requested to decide the pending bail application on its own merit, without being influenced by the impugned order.
SLP dismissed.
........
|
9911796707
