|
Advanced Search Options
Money Laundering - Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 1544 Records
-
2023 (7) TMI 440
Money Laundering - misuse of funds allocated under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme and irregularities in supply of medicines, equipment and other items under the NRHM Scheme - HELD THAT:- A number of pleas and contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant - Sanjay Agarwal, but we are refraining from the referring to these contentions in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the respondent - Directorate Of Enforcement. However, one of the contentions raised relates to the quantum of the amount involved. Reference can be made to the orders passed granting bail to the appellant-Sanjay Agarwal and the amount that was directed to be deposited.
The appellant - Sanjay Agarwal shall surrender before the trial court and thereupon, would be released on bail - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (7) TMI 419
Request for hearing the reply - exclusion of the days in the initial period of 15 days in the matter of claim of police custody - HELD THAT:- It goes without saying that as the question has already been framed by this court, at the time of admission and today the same being argued in detail on behalf of the petitioner, the said question is being considered.
As requested by the learned Solicitor General of India, post the case on 27.06.2023 for respondent side arguments.
-
2023 (7) TMI 389
Bribe - Writ of Habeas Corpus (to produce the body before court - seeking direction to respondents to produce the body of the detenu Shri V.Senthil Balaji, S/o Velusamy aged about 48 years before this Court and set him free - petitioner was not permitted to avail the right to consent a legal counsel.
The allegation against the detenu is that, while officiating as a Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu, he had obtained money from third parties promising jobs in the Transport Department and thereafter cheated them.
Whether or not a Writ of Habeas Corpus would be maintainable after passing of Judicial Order of Remand of the detenu and if so, on what premises? - HELD THAT:- The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Kanu Sanyal's case [1974 (2) TMI 85 - SUPREME COURT] held that irrespective of the pointers of legality or otherwise with regard to the initial detention, when there is a subsequent order making the detention as legal, in the application for Habeas Corpus, the Court is not concerned with the same.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Serious Fraud Investigation Office’s case [2019 (3) TMI 1411 - SUPREME COURT], while considering the ex post facto extension granted by the Central Government, by which only, the Agency had jurisdiction to proceed further, considered the issue in detail and held that the Habeas Corpus Petition will no longer be maintainable once there is an Order authorising judicial custody as the custody is the pursuant to the custodial judicial function exercised by a competent Court.
A petition for Habeas Corpus agitating to produce the detenu and set him at liberty normally would not be maintainable after the order of judicial remand, but, only under the exceptional circumstances of absolute illegality.
Whether the petitioner herein had made out a case for exercise ofpowers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set the detenu free? - Violation of Article 22(1) - HELD THAT:- From the very nature of the allegations in this case that there was non-cooperation and threat and allegation of manhandling leading to a drama at the time of arrest, it can be prima facie concluded that there is no ground to discard the veracity in the averment made on behalf of the respondent officials - Copies of e-mails sent to the relatives of the detenu including the petitioner herein and SMS messages sent through telephone numbers are also produced. Therefore, I am satisfied that there due compliance of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India and the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to the same in this regard.
Non-following of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that the provisions of both the statutes absolutely make it clear that if there is a special enactment and if there is any special provision contained in respect of any particular purpose, then that special provision will apply. Wherever the special enactment does not contain specific provisions, then the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply. The Code of Criminal Procedure and P.M.L.A are thus clearly and categorically harmonious - the issue is no longer res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had considered that the special provision in the form of Section 19 adequately safeguards the interests of the accused and thus, the express application of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., stood negated in respect of the offence under P.M.L.A.
On a perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer of the case, it would be clear that the accused behaved in a manner so as to intimidate the Investigating Officer and secondly, did not also furnish the particulars which were necessary to trace out the money trail relating to the offence and thirdly was hampering the investigation. Therefore, on more than one ground mentioned in Section 41(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the arrest was necessary and the same is clearly mentioned in the grounds of arrest and thus, even in the absence of specific application, substantially the requirements under Section 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C., stood complied in the instant case - the petitioner has not made out a case in this regard.
Non-application of mind at the time of remand - HELD THAT:- It cannot be said that there is non-application of mind much less total nonapplication of mind. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the detenu is that when the objections are raised in the petition to reject the remand, the said petition ought to have been considered while making the order of remand and it was incumbent on the part of the learned Presiding Officer to apply his or her mind in respect of those objections and if those objections are found to be genuine or valid, then the remand should be refused and if the objections are liable to be rejected, then the remand should be authorised.
Even though a petition for objections has been taken up subsequently, all the substantive allegations of non-information of the grounds, non-existence of prima facie case and other concerns were independently considered by her which reflects in the order of remand and therefore, the violation complained is only of procedure and becomes technical in nature, as there is substantive application of mind in the order of remand. Therefore, in this context, even though, the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel agreed upon that the procedure adopted by the learned Pricipal Sessions Judge could have been better, substantive compliance relating to the application of mind as to the compliance of the Article 22 of the Constitution of India, Section 19 of P.M.L.A for arrest and consideration of other apprehensions expressed by the detenu himself are made and therefore, there the exercise of power cannot be termed as “absolute mechanical manner” or 'total non application of mind'.
Therefore, it can be seen that the petitioner is unable to make out any ground. Every ground raised is untenable or to say the least is arguable both in terms of law and on facts and therefore, this is not a case of patent illegality or absolute nonapplication of mind or case of lack of jurisdiction so as to grant any relief to the petitioner.
If the detenu is not be set free, then whether the period from the moment of his arrest on 14.06.2023, whereby, he is admitted in the Hospital till his discharge is to be excluded while computing the time of initial 15 days from the date of remand to judicial custody under Section 167 of Cr.P.C., so as to entrust him for the custody of the respondents? - HELD THAT:- From Section 65 of P.M.L.A and if Section 65 is read along with Section 4(2) and 5 of Cr.P.C., it can be seen that in respect of the investigation of the offences under P.M.L.A, since no other contrary or separate procedure is contained in P.M.L.A, the provisions relating to investigation would be applicable to the offences relating to P.M.L.A - the word “Police” is not even specifically used at the first instance. In any event, when Section 65 of P.M.L.A expressly makes it clear that the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure relating to investigation will apply to P.M.L.A, then Section 167 Cr.P.C., should be applicable to mutatis mutandis and therefore, the word “Police” has to be read as Investigating Agency or the Enforcement Directorate. Therefore, the first contention that the Enforcement Directorate cannot seek for Police custody is without any merits.
In this case, after the arrest and before the production before the learned Principal Sessions Judge and after the remand, not even a minute, for which, the detenu / accused was available to the respondents for custodial interrogation. In the offences like P.M.L.A, especially in the current scenario, when money trail is difficult to be unearthed on account of huge advancement of technology wire transfers, off-shore investments and transfers, it is extremely essential to unearth the truth and the custodial interrogation assumes significance - The accused, in this case, was unwell and it was due to his Coronary Artery Disease. The reason is attributable not to the Enforcement Directorate. Similarly, not permitting him in the custody for interrogation, is only taking into consideration of his own health and his health condition so that he will not be put to undue stress when he is ailing from a serious disease and post operative care. In such circumstances, when the first 15 days goes in the Hospital for his own benefit, then the benefit of custodial interrogation cannot be denied in its entirety to the respondents Enforcement Directorate.
By the interim order dated 15.06.2003, this Court, based on the medical reports of the detenu, had agreed that the detenu needs emergency medical treatment and ordered shifting to Cauvery Hospital for treatment. As a matter of fact, the respondents Enforcement Directorate had every right to feel aggrieved by our interim order and also to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court for redressal and has been rightly done so in this case. But, at the same time, the custody was also pressed on the next day. Had the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai had granted the prayer, then virtually, it would amount to overruling the order that there is necessity for emergent treatment.
What reliefs are to be granted in the present Habeas Corpus Petition? - HELD THAT:- By the interim order, it was directed shifting of the detenu / accused to the Cauvery Hospital, Chennai to undergo treatment for his ailment. It is also submitted before us that already, the surgery is performed and he is out of the Intensive Care Unit and at present, continuing his treatment in the Hospital. Considering the fact that he has undergone surgery and he can continue to undergo the treatment at the Cauvery Hospital for a period of another 10 days from today or until discharge whichever is earlier. If he needs treatment even after the 10th day, the same shall be continued at the Prison Hospital and his physician / surgeon can also visit him there and continue the treatment/follow up.
In the result,
(i) The Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P.No.1021 of 2023 shall stand dismissed;
(ii) The period from 14.06.2023 till such time the detenu / accused is fit for custody of the respondent shall be deducted from the initial period of 15 days under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure;
(iii) The detenu / accused shall continue the treatment at Cauvery Hospital until discharge or for a period of 10 days from today whichever is earlier and thereafter, if further treatment is necessary, it can be only at the Prison/ Prison Hospital as the case may be;
(iv) As and when he is medically fit, the respondents will be able to move the appropriate Court for custody and the same shall be considered on its own merits in accordance with law except not to be denied on the ground of expiry of 15 days from the date of remand;
(v) However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2023 (7) TMI 384
Judgement pronounced with split verdict by Division Bench of the High Court - HELD THAT:- The Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to place the matter before the 3rd Judge at the earliest, with a further request to the assigned Bench to decide the issues as noticed in our previous order dated 21.06.2023, as early as possible.
Post these special leave petitions for hearing on 24.07.2023.
-
2023 (7) TMI 383
Maintainability of the Habeas Corpus Petition - exclusion of the period of treatment undergone by the detenu from the period of custodial interrogation - HELD THAT:- Since both these issues are likely to be examined by the High Court on the date fixed, i.e., 22-06-2023 or soon thereafter, it is deemed appropriate to post these Special Leave Petitions for further hearing on 04-07-2023.
It is clarified that the pendency of these Special Leave Petitions shall not be taken as a ground to adjourn the matter, pending adjudication before the High Court.
-
2023 (7) TMI 381
Maintainability of writ of Habeas Corpus against an order of remand under Section 167 of Criminal Procedure Code - Illegal detention of the husband of the petitioner - it is alleged that the detenu had obtained money from third parties, promising jobs in the Transport Department and thereafter cheated them - HELD THAT:- The medical bulletin issued by the Government Medical College and Hospital, Omandurar Government Estate is extracted. At this juncture, lightly and without any material, it cannot be doubted that the opinion of the doctors, when there has to be an emergent treatment. As prima facie, the detenu is in custody by judicial order of remand, there is no question of enlarging him on bail. He shall continue to be in judicial custody.
The only question is whether he has to undergo an emergent treatment at the Omandurar Government Hospital itself or the hospital of their choice. In this regard, when the petitioner pleads that they have a regular physician at Cauvery Hospital, Chennai which is also a reputed hospital in Chennai, regarding the treatment in Cardiology, when the matter is concerning a life of an individual, the prayer on behalf of the detenu to undergo treatment at the hospital of their choice, at his own cost, can be acceded to even while he continues to be in judicial custody.
But however, since there is a concern which is expressed on behalf of the respondents / Enforcement Directorate, even after shifting the detenu from the Omandurar Government Hospital to Cauvery Hospital, a panel of doctors constituted by the respondents, can also visit and examine the detenu and the medical records and the treatment which is being given to the detenu - the detenu is directed to be shifted to Cauvery Hospital, Chennai, for undergoing the emergency treatment as mentioned in the Medical Bulletin of the Omandurar Government MultiSpeciality Hospital, Chennai, dated 14/06/2023.
Call the main Habeas Corpus Petition on 22.06.2023 for final disposal.
-
2023 (7) TMI 112
Money Laundering - seeking review of order of Supreme Court - SCN sought to be quashed on the ground that Bench constituted under clause (b) of sub-section (5) of section 6 of the PMLA, 2002, did not have a Judicial Member - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in numerous judgments has held very clearly that such practice of filing application for modification/clarification of judgment rendered must be deprecated as in actual what it seeks is a review or revision of the judgment which is not permissible.
In INDIAN COUNCIL FOR ENVIRO-LEGAL ACTION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS [2011 (7) TMI 1109 - SUPREME COURT] the Supreme Court examined whether a final judgment of the Supreme Court could be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications. It was held that a final judgment cannot be reopened by merely filing interlocutory applications where all possible legal remedies have been fully exhausted. In the case before the Supreme Court two interlocutory applications had been filed after the Supreme Court had pronounced the judgment. It was held that permitting the parties to reopen the concluded judgments by filing repeated I.As is clearly an abuse of the process of law and would have a far reaching adverse impact on the administration of justice.
It was open for the applicant to have preferred a review petition before the learned Single Judge or an appeal before the Division Bench of this Court or even a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the judgment dated 22.09.2015 within the prescribed time if they were not satisfied with it - Even if this Court was to consider the application for modification/clarification as one filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which is the inherent power of this Court to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice it cannot come to aid a litigant to abuse the process of administration of justice.
Application dismissed.
-
2023 (7) TMI 36
Seeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - creation of fake Fixed Deposit receipts, which were created on the basis of the original FD receipts - tampering the evidence - HELD THAT:- About non-compliance of 41(A) notice, as per submission of the respondent, statement recorded under Section 50(a) under Act, Judicial Statement, need not be issued 41(A) notice - on perusal of the materials relied on by the respondent / Police, prima facie established that he was actually involved in the process connected with the crime, and he not only created fake FD receipts, but also intentionally assisted A1 and other accused persons to open the fake Current Account by preparing fake documents,forging the specimen signatures of the officials and Rubber Stamp of Port Trust and "Port of Chennai's logo and also possession and enjoyment of the proceeds of the Crime by concealing its original documents and transferring the amounts to other accounts projecting and claiming the same as untainted.
Furthermore, as per the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, petitioner had not disclosed the two facts pertaining to the end-use of mis-appropriated amount, which is the proceeds of the crime, and as of now Rs.7 crores were recovered and nearly about Rs.35 crores is yet to be recovered by the investigating agency and crores of rupees of Port trust which is a public money, were mis-appropriated by the petitioner /A22 along with other accused persons. Therefore, the authority relied on by the petitioner's counsel to show that the role of the petitioner is restricted only in respect of creation of the alleged fabricated fake FD receipts, as such is unsustainable one.
Considering antecedence of the petitioner that he had already involved in Bank fraud case during the year 2009 in FIR.No.RC.14/E/2009- CBI-EOW/Chennai dated 04.09.2009, which was registered by the CBI, EOW, Chennai. In that case, Rs.25 Crores belonging to M/s.Northern Coal fields Limited (M/s.NCL), were fraudulently transfered by one Krishnan Rao to the Current Account No.3014563150 of his Company and subsequently, they transfered the amounts to several Accounts. In that case, the petitioner also opened an Account in ICICI Bank, for nearly about Rs.2 crores, which were credited to his Account, and subsequently, the amount were withdrawn. Thus, petitioner has not complied with the second conditions to avail the benefit of bail i.e. he was already charged for the offences of like nature.
The Special Public Prosecutor said that, in the instant case, the proceedings of the Directorate of Enforcement had clearly reflected that the respondent / Police have collected sufficient materials against the petitioner to proceed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act.
Statement recorded by Assistant Director under Section 50 PMLA for this petitioner also enclosed in counter statement by the respondent. The active participation on the part of this accused also primafacie reveals that he, knowing well the purpose of creation of the fake documents he has involved in the present offence, as stated by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The petitioner/A22 is one of the main person and he played active role with the prime accused person, so the authorities relied on Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, N. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [2022 (3) TMI 196 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] by the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Considering the antecedence of the petitioner / A22 as well as huge amount of public exchequer is involved, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, that too when further investigation is yet to be done by the respondent / Police. Furthermore on considering the nature of the offences committed by the petitioner and also the previous antecedents, possibility of indulge in similar offence, and that there is a possibility of tampering with witnesses and hampering the evidence and investigation, and as there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1340
Seeking grant of Bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - present applicant and the main accused Suryakant Tiwari were involved in illegal extortion from the coal transporters working in the Coal Mines within the State of Chhattisgarh - HELD THAT:- What is apparently evident is that the prosecution in the course of the investigation has collected substantial materials showing strong nexus between the applicant and the other accused persons in the said crime. From the documents produced in the Court during the course of hearing, there seems to be prima-facie materials collected establishing Money Laundering at the hands of the present applicant and the other accused persons. The prosecution has been able to show documents collected in the course of the search and seizure showing incriminating evidences in the form of handwritten diaries and digital devices, like mobile phones, laptops, etc. which would disclose numerous cash transactions and other illegal transactions operated by the main accused Suryakant Tiwari as per the dictates of the present applicant, who being a public servant used Suryakant Tiwari and Manish Upadhyay her a front men.
Having perused the entire voluminous documents produced by either side, the magnitude of the amount involved in the so called scam or the economic offence is incomprehensible. Further, the number of persons involved in the commission of the offence directly or indirectly and many of them being part of the bureaucracy itself and the period of commission of the offence spanning considerable period of time makes the gravity of the offence graver. What is required to be seen is the gravity and magnitude of the offence - An economic offence is a rampant and pervasive social wrongdoing; each country on the planet is confronting this socio-economic challenge in one or the other form. It is the most consequential threat to a nation’s economy at large. It's nothing but another attempt to satisfy an individual’s greed over need.
For the law enforcement agencies, it becomes a Herculean task to conduct interrogation and gather evidence since tampering of evidence is easy given the nexus of the accused parties with the system. 20. In such circumstances, the need of impartiality and fair play requires distinctive modus operandi to lift the veil off of economic offences. One way is to keep the accused parties in custody for longer period, so that there will be minimum hinderance and maximum efficiency in the investigation not just that of the applicant but also of all others who are involved in the offence. For that purpose, bail ought not be allowed in the same way as conceded in the event of regular offences.
Taking into consideration the magnitude of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present applicant as of now - bail application rejected.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1325
Money Laundering - seeking grant of interim bail - bail sought on medical grounds - whether the petitioner is entitled to interim bail as being "sick or infirm" in terms of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA?
HELD THAT:- Health condition of a human being deserves utmost importance and right to health is one of the most significant dimensions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Every person has a right to get himself adequately and effectively treated. The exercise of discretion of the grant of bail is not to be exercised only as a last resort rather freedom is a cherished fundamental right.
Hence, in view of the health conditions of the petitioner, the medical records being furnished on behalf of the petitioner and the same being verified by the ED as authentic, the non-denial of the condition of the petitioner which is worse than the co-accused who has been granted regular bail, and on the perusal of all other precedents this Court finds that the petitioner is suffering from life-threatening diseases warranting immediate medical attention and post-operative care. This Court is of the opinion in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner's case satisfies the test of the proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA.
This Court has also appreciated the other factors as required to be considered while granting bail to an accused. It is evident that there is nothing on record to show that the liberty granted to the petitioner has been misused by him during his previous interim bails and neither has he been found to be an absconder.
The petitioner is admitted to interim bail for a period of six weeks on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned, subject to the conditions imposed - application is disposed of.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1324
Grant of Regular bail - bail sought on medical and humanitarian grounds for a period of 3 months alleging precarious health of the petitioner - whether the petitioner, who is in custody, is entitled to interim bail on medical grounds? - HELD THAT:- Article 21 of the Constitution provides for protection of life and personal liberty. The said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law". The liberty of a person who is accused or convicted of an offence can be curtailed according to procedure established by law. However, right to health is also recognized as an important facet of Article 21 of the Constitution. Merely because a person is an under trial or for that matter even a convict, lodged in jail, this facet of right to life cannot be curtailed. It remains an obligation of the state to provide adequate and effective medical treatment to every person lodged in jail, whether under trial or a convict.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Kewal Krishan Kumar V. Enforcement Directorate, [2023 (3) TMI 746 - DELHI HIGH COURT], referring to the relevant clauses of the Finance Bill introduced on 1st February, 2018 for amending Section 45 of the PMLA, observed that a purposive interpretation of the proviso to section 45(1) shows that it has been incorporated as a lenient provision or to afford 'relaxation' to a sick or infirm person as noted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons to PMLA.
The power to grant bail on medical grounds under the first proviso to Section 45(1) of the Act is discretionary, therefore, the same has to be exercised in a judicious manner guided by principles of law after recording satisfaction that necessary circumstances exist warranting exercise of such a discretion.
In the absence of an opinion of the experts it is difficult for this Court to come to the conclusion as to whether it is a case for grant of interim bail on the medical grounds. The Court cannot assume the role of an expert and make assessment of its own as regard the medical condition of the petitioner on the basis of medical records placed on the Court file - on humanitarian grounds, the medical condition of the petitioner as articulated in the affidavit of petitioner's wife cannot be simply brushed aside given the fact that there is material on record suggesting that the petitioner is heart patient, as well as having spine related issues, besides other ailments
This Court deems it appropriate, to constitute a medical board to evaluate the medical condition of the petitioner - List on 12.06.2023.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1005
Money Laundering - alleged collection of huge amount of money from the public by M/s. Fine Indisales Private Limited and of misappropriation thereof - HELD THAT:- The Court below could have issued a bailable warrant at that stage if it was not inclined to grant time or had any reason to believe that the Petitioners were avoiding appearance, but directing issuance of N.B.Ws. straight away cannot at all be held to be justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is stated that the Petitioners were engaged in marketing jobs at different places of Raipur and Mumbai and therefore, could not personally appear.
This is a reasonable explanation for non-appearance, which ought to have been considered by the Court below. Even the fact that the Petitioners were never arrested during investigation and prosecution does not allege that they had not cooperated with the investigating agency, does not seem to have been considered by the Court at all. Therefore, there seems to be no justified reason to take coercive steps against the Petitioners for their appearance.
This Court is strongly persuaded to hold that the impugned order in so far as it relates to the direction for issuance of N.B.W. cannot be sustained in the eye or law - Petition allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 1004
Seeking enlargement on Bail - Money Laundering - Scheduled offences - swindling of money invested by the Government in a dubious manner - discrepancies including diversion of APSSDC funds through various shell companies - diversion of Government funds - Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- It has been revealed about diversion of major funds to suspicious entities done by SEPL under the pretext of supply of software/ hardware/materials/services. It is alleged that in reality, the supply of such goods and services was not done. On examination of data and analysis of bank account statements shows that about Rs. 56.00 crores, out of the funds received from APSSDC, was transferred by SEPL to the entity ACI, and the said amount was diverted through a web of shell entities by way of layered transactions.
The petitioner had knowledge that no goods or services were being provided by the shell companies to DTSPL. An amount of Rs. 241.00 crores was received by SEPL from DTSPL and a significant part of the said government funds were diverted through SEPL and complex web of shell companies under the guise of supply of software/ hardeware/materials/services - government funds were diverted by DTSPL, belonging to Vikas Khanvelkar, through SEPL and a web of shell companies, and in lieu of transfer of funds, cash was provided by entry operators who were managing the shell companies, and the said cash was moved from entry operators to Suresh Goyal. In the said diversion of government funds, the petitioner, Suman Bose and Vikas Khanvelkar played pivotal roles. Hence, the petitioner committed the offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
In the aforesaid identical case in SANJAY RAGHUNATH AGARWAL VERSUS THE DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [2023 (4) TMI 874 - SUPREME COURT], lodging of the prosecution complaint is sequel to the registration of the FIR in the predicate offence way back in the year 2021. In the present case on hand also, no charge sheet has been filed in the predicate offence for the last more than 15 months. The petitioner herein has been in jail from 04.03.2023. It is the first offence insofar as the petitioner is concerned. There are no other complaints registered as against him. The said argument gives room to say that second condition in clause (2) of sub-section (1) of Section 45 of the PMLA would be satisfied. In the aforesaid circumstances, continued incarceration of the petitioner is not justified.
In respect of a query raised by the investigating agency, the petitioner herein gave response to each and every question that has been asked for. Prosecution complaint was also filed on 01.05.2023. The petitioner was arrested on 04.03.2023 and since then he is in judicial custody. When time and again, petitioner is continuously attending before the investigating agency and co-operating with the investigation, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary to detain the petitioner in jail further. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court feels that request of the petitioner for grant of bail can be considered, however, on certain conditions.
The petitioner shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum- Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam - the Criminal Petition is allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 792
Seeking unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition - constitutional validity of Sections 50, 63 and other provisions of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- Having said that the Court is constrained to observe that despite the Three-Judge Bench decision in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others vs. Union of India and Others [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], upholding the vires of various provisions including Sections 50 and 63 of PMLA, a new trend is developed in this Court to file writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India again challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 50, 63 and other provisions of the PMLA, also seeking consequential reliefs which otherwise would tantamount to by-passing the other alternative efficacious forums available to the petitioners under the law.
The writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn with limited liberty.
-
2023 (6) TMI 791
Jurisdiction of the Adjudicating Authority under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 - quasi-judicial statutory authority and not a Central Agency - petitioners challenges the impugned order of the PMLA authority on the ground of coram non judice.
HELD THAT:- Insofar as the objection as to coram non judice is concerned, there are two interpretations possible regarding the provisions of Section 6 of the PMLA - The one in favour of the petitioners is on the basis of sub-section (2) of Section 6, which stipulates that an Adjudicating Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and two other Members. The qualifications of the Members have also been provided in the proviso. Hence, as per the Scheme of the Act, the Adjudicating Authority has to comprise of three Members in total, out of whom one will be the Chairperson. However, it has been argued that at present the Adjudicating Authority is functioning only with a Chairperson, without any other Member having been appointed to fill the vacancies. Thus, the question of coram non judice arises - On the other hand, sub-section (5)(b) provides that a Bench may be constituted by the Chairperson with one or two Members, as the Chairperson of the Adjudicating Authority may deem fit. Hence, it is evident that the Chairperson has the discretion even to function with only one Member, which can very well be herself/himself. Proceeding on such premise, the objection as to coram non judice cannot be accepted.
Hence, on a comprehensive interpretation of Section 6, it is clear that not only has the Chairperson the discretion to constitute a Bench with only one Member, but the norm also as per Section 6(7) is that the Bench will consist of a single Member and, only if the case is of a critical nature, a Bench consisting of two Members will be assigned the hearing - In the present case, the Chairperson, as a single Member, has proceeded to take up the hearing of the application under Section 17 of the PMLA which, in the light of Section 6, cannot be held to be vitiated on the ground of coram non judice.
Apprehension of bias - Chairperson has been proceeding in hot haste and fixed the first hearing at the office of the ED, which is itself the complainant - HELD THAT:- The respondents have sought to explain away such venue by arguing that the CGO Complex, where the sitting was scheduled, houses all the offices Central Government including the ED office. Although in the Notice it was indicated that the meeting would be held in the ED office, it was held in a different Government office of the same building which was on the same floor as the ED office - That apart, the petitioners’ counsel participated in the hearing and never took the objection as to the venue.
The mere selection of the ED office as a venue in the present context, in the absence of any other clinching factor to indicate bias, would not vitiate the proceeding, more so since the matter has not yet reached the final hearing stage - Hence, it cannot be said that the Chairperson committed any jurisdictional error in himself, as a single Member, to entertain and proceed with the hearing of the application pending before the Authority.
There is no scope of entertaining the writ petition at this stage. However, in order to allay the apprehension of bias in the mind of the petitioners, a further opportunity of hearing ought to be given to the petitioners before closing the hearing on the pending interim applications - Application is disposed of by directing the Adjudicating Authority to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and/or their counsel and thereafter to pass necessary orders.
-
2023 (6) TMI 705
Jurisdiction - power of learned Single Judge to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to carry on investigation in the municipality recruitment scam - illegalities perpetrated in a selection process conducted for appointment to the posts of teachers in primary schools and in which the Department of Urban Development and Municipal Affairs was not even arrayed as a party respondent.
HELD THAT:- In view of disposal of the SLP granting an interim order and permitting the petitioner to move a petition by way of review before the High Court with an observation that ‘in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate if the State of West Bengal is heard afresh by the High Court on the issue as to whether the investigation should be initiated by the CBI’, the appellant may not be debarred a hearing on merit moreso when the assignee Court had dismissed the review.
Corruption is a reprehensible crime in a society and it is an assault on the faith of the common people upon officers and Ministers and people’s representatives. It defiles and degrades and shakes the confidence of the people at large upon the Government. It causes psychological harm to the society at large leaving upon it indelible marks. The allegations in the instant case are neither skirmishes nor bald, but speak of overt acts indicating complicity among the Ministers and high placed government officials. During investigation a mammoth amount of Rs. 111 crores and gold and jewellery valued at Rs. 5.08 crores had already been seized and attached - It is well known that a slight distinction in fact or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision making process. The judgments delivered in the case of Sampat Lal and Others [1984 (12) TMI 328 - SUPREME COURT] and Divine Retreat Centre –vs- State of Kerala and Others [2008 (3) TMI 734 - SUPREME COURT] were taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP preferred in connection with the present writ petition and the direction upon CBI to investigate was not stalled.
In the present case, the subject matter is a scam of extraordinary dimension and the money trail and exchange of monetary considerations for giving appointments have extended to selection process of education as well as municipality. Such investigation cannot be scuttled on a purported plea that the learned Court had no jurisdiction to direct CBI investigation in recruitment of municipality since it was having determination over Group-II matters. The wide language of Article 226 of the Indian Constitution has conferred upon High Courts, ample power to reach injustice wherever found. Instead of being astute to discover reasons for not applying the constitutional remedy, the same needs to be applied in every case to which, by any reasonable construction, it can be made applicable - The collective suffering of those who have been wronged by the malevolent activities of morally debased individuals, necessitates urgency in action. An uninterrupted and conclusive investigation into the connected schemes of corruption is the only means by which the perpetrators can be brought to justice.
The order impugned dated 21st April, 2023 need not be interfered - appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 650
Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - predicate offences - diversion of funds from home-buyers from the accounts of Unitech Limited or its associate company - existence of mens rea - triple test - Flight Risk - Influencing Witnesses and Tampering with Evidence - whether the Proviso to Section 45(1) of the PMLA will be applicable to the applicant being a woman? - HELD THAT:- PMLA does not define a ‘woman’. It is neither the intention of the Constitution of India nor the intention of PMLA to classify women on the basis of their education and occupation, social standing, exposure to society, etc. - It is also settled principle of interpretation that while interpreting a statute and/or a Section, the Courts are not to substitute or add or subtract words from the Section. The same would be amounting to supplanting the intention of the Legislature.
Once the word ‘woman’ has been used in the Proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA, the Court is not to further sub-classify women into different categories and apply the twin condition of Section 45 to some category of women and to exclude some category of women from the twin condition of Section 45. Doing the same would be not only be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution but also be a great injustice to the intention of the Legislature - In Devki Nandan [2022 (9) TMI 1216 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Court has already held that the proviso to section 45(1) PMLA is an exception and once a person comes within the exception, the twin condition of Section 45 PMLA will not be applicable to such person.
This court has observed in Kewal Krishan Kumar [2023 (3) TMI 746 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the legislature has carved out the proviso to section 45(1) as a lenient provision for persons below sixteen years of age, women or persons who are sick or infirm.
Once an accused is a woman, the Proviso to Section 45(1) kicks in and the applicant would fall within the proviso - However, this does not mean that the applicant will not be required to satisfy the triple test for grant of bail.
In order to prove mens rea, the respondent/prosecuting agency is required to show something more than merely an allegation. In the present case, though the prosecuting agency has tried to substantiate the allegations by showing transfer of POC as well as section 50 PMLA statements, but what persuades me is that the Applicant has provided a prima facie reasonable, satisfactory explanation for each of the allegations. Whether the prima facie satisfactory explanation crystallises into substantial defence leading to an acquittal or is merely an eye-wash or a sham can only be determined after evidence - The explanations furnished by the Applicant seem reasonable to me to believe that prima facie the Applicant is not guilty of the offence of money laundering.
A coordinate bench of this court in Chandra Prakash Khandelwal [2023 (2) TMI 993 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that weightage given to section 50 statement is to be analysed at the final stage and not at the stage of grant of bail. Hence, prima facie not much reliance can be placed on section 50 statements in view of inconsistency in the statements of Indrajit Zaveri, Anuj Malik and Pranav Kumar.
Triple Test – Flight Risk
Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted liberty to the applicant to move appropriate bail application before the appropriate Court, the appropriate Court has to adjudicate the application on its own merits and the reliance of the respondent on an earlier order prior to the order of 10.08.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court may not be of much relevance. In addition, the respondents have interrogated the Applicant on numerous occasions and lastly on 15.09.2022. Thereafter the respondents have not felt the need to interrogate the Applicant for a period of more than 7-8 months - Regarding the applicant being a citizen of another country i.e., Dominican Republic, which does not have an extradition treaty with India, the learned senior counsel for the Applicant states that the Applicant is willing to renounce the citizenship of Dominican Republic as a bail condition and is already in the process of taking Indian citizenship.
Triple Test – Influencing Witnesses and Tampering with Evidence
A perusal of the chats show that the messages are with regard to settling of a counter affidavit, exchanging greetings, details of bank accounts asked for by the court, filling of bail bonds and so on and so forth - It cannot be lost sight that the applicant is the wife of Mr. Sanjay Chandra who is in Police custody. The applicant is allowed meetings and regular jail visits. All these messages could very well have been put by her to Mr. Sanjay Chandra during these jail visits. There is nothing incriminating in the messages except the fact that Mr. Sanjay Chandra should not and could not have a telephone while in jail, for which, an FIR has already been registered.
There are no messages which have been brought to my notice which show handling of money, monetary transactions, business decisions, siphoning off funds etc. Furthermore, as regarding tampering with evidence is concerned, it is already stated that all the documents are in the custody of the ED and therefore, the allegation of the Applicant tampering with the evidence or influencing the witnesses is not made out.
The twin conditions of Section 45 of the PMLA will not be applicable to the applicant. The applicant has to satisfy the triple test which can be taken care of by imposing stringent conditions. The applicant has already been investigated for more than 13 occasions and has been in custody for more than 20 months.
The application is allowed and the applicant is granted bail subject to the terms and conditions imposed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 594
Money Laundering - refusal of the High Court to extend the time for completion of investigation - access of certain documents available on record in the Special Court trying the predicate offences - application seeking the constitution of a Special Investigation Team.
Challenge to the order for de novo investigation - inclusion of the name of the Minister and his accomplices in the Final Report submitted under Section 173(8) and the inclusion of the offences under the PC Act seems to have bothered Devasagayam more than the Minister himself. Therefore, Devasagayam filed a petition seeking a direction to the Investigating Officer to conduct a de novo investigation - HELD THAT:- The grounds on which Devasagayam sought de novo investigation were quite strange. In his petition seeking de novo investigation, Devasagayam stated that though his specific complaint was against one Baskar and nine others, the Final Report filed under Section 173(8) included other persons, who, according to Devasagayam, had no connection with the case. Devasagayam also stated in his petition seeking de novo investigation that Baskar and Kesavan against whom he made a specific complaint, are not shown as accused. In fact, the allegation made by Gopi in his petition before the High Court that Devasagayam had been won over by the accused, was not without substance, as can be seen from a few averments made by Devasagayam - It is not known whether Devasagayam was referring to the persons against whom he made a specific complaint as fictitious persons or whether he was calling the Minister and the person alleged to be his Secretary, named as accused in the Final Report as fictitious persons.
The fact that Devasagayam’s petition was intended to help the accused is also borne out by one more fact. His original complaint dated 29.10.2015 which led to the registration of FIR in Crime No.441 of 2015 was against ten persons and the offences registered therein were only under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC. On this complaint, a Final Report was filed under Section 173(2) of the Code on 13.06.2017 and this resulted in the registration of Calendar Case in CC No.3627 of 2017. Devasagayam was happy with the fact that the Report filed under Section 173(2) did not include the offences under the PC Act. Devasagayam was not bothered at that time about the fact that the register for entering the interview marks, sent to the Forensic Department had not been received.
In the order impugned in these appeals, the High Court has indicated by using four different expressions and phrases that the investigation so far conducted shall not form part of the record. But even according to the learned senior counsel for Devasagayam and learned senior counsel for the accused, the operative portion of the impugned order of the High Court need not be understood in such a manner. If that is so, all those phrases and expressions deserve to be removed. If they are removed, the life gets ebbed out of the impugned order, which in our opinion, it richly deserves.
The investigation and trial of a criminal case cannot be converted by the complainant and the accused into a friendly match. If they are allowed to do so, it is the Umpire who will lose his wicket - appeal on this issue allowed.
Concerning proceedings by Enforcement Directorate - HELD THAT:- It is seen from the impugned order that at least two out of three accused specifically argued before the High Court that their case was squarely covered by the decision of this Court in VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT], but interestingly most of the arguments advanced before us turned out to be an attack on the correctness of the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary. We are not suggesting that this defection from one point of view to the other is covered by Schedule X.
In paragraph 22, the High Court recorded an opinion that the grant of stay would amount to eclipsing the proceedings. Therefore, on this sole ground, the High Court concluded in paragraph 22 of the impugned order that the ED has to await the outcome of the proceedings for quashing the criminal complaints, in which a stay order was in force. But the High Court made it clear that it was not entering upon the merits and demerits of the proceedings initiated by the ED and the High Court left all the questions to be dealt with in appropriate proceedings.
It is clear that the provisions of PMLA are in tune with the Model Law drafted by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
Whether without identifying the proceeds of crime or a property representing the proceeds of crime and without identifying any process or activity connected to proceeds of crime as required by Section 3, which constitute the foundational/jurisdictional fact, ED can initiate an investigation and issue summons? - HELD THAT:- It is true that there are some offences, which, though scheduled offences, may or may not generate proceeds of crime. For instance, the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 is a scheduled offence. Unless it is a murder for gain or murder by a hired assassin, the same may or may not generate proceeds of crime. It is in respect of such types of offences that one may possibly argue that mere commission of the crime is not sufficient but the generation of proceeds of crime is necessary. In the case of an offence of corruption, the criminal activity and the generation of the proceeds of crime are like Siamese twins.
Therefore, even if an intangible property is derived as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, it becomes proceeds of crime under Section 2(1)(u). In view of the above, we are not impressed with the contention that the investigation by ED was triggered without any foundational/jurisdictional facts. In our view, the allegations in the FIR point out to (i) involvement of persons in criminal activity relating to scheduled offences; (ii) the generation as well as (iii) laundering of the proceeds of crime within the meaning of Section 3. This is in view of the fact that wherever there are allegations of corruption, there is acquisition of proceeds of crime which itself tantamount to money-laundering.
Once an information relating to the acquisition of huge amount of illegal gratification in the matter of public employment has come into the public domain, it is the duty of the ED to register an Information Report. This is because “acquisition” is an activity amounting to money-laundering and the illegal gratification acquired by a public servant represents “proceeds of crime,” generated through a criminal activity in respect of a scheduled offence. Therefore, it does not require any expedition, much less a fishing expedition for someone to say that the receipt of bribe money is an act of money-laundering - the contention of Shri Sidharth Luthra that there was no explanation for the delay on the part of the ED in registering the Information Report, is a self-serving argument. If the ED registers an Information Report immediately upon the registration of a FIR for a predicate offence, ED will be accused of acting in haste. If they wait until the drama unfolds up to a particular stage, ED will be attacked as guilty of delay. The accused should be thankful to ED for giving a long rope from 2016 till 2021.
Whether in the light of the fact that notice has been ordered in the review petition and a few interim orders have been passed in some proceedings, it is necessary for this Court to tag these appeals along with a review petition or defer the hearing of these matters until a decision is rendered in the review petition and other petitions? - HELD THAT:- The accused have not come up with any appeal challenging the order of the High Court dated 01.09.2022. Therefore, they are entitled at the maximum, to argue only for the dismissal of the appeals filed by ED and others against the said decision. Suppose the learned counsel for the accused is agreed upon and the appeals filed by ED are dismissed, even then they cannot have an escape route since the impugned order of the High Court protects them only till the other proceedings are kept at bay.
The accused is not entitled at all either to seek a reference to a larger Bench or to seek to defer the matter till a decision is rendered in the matters involving larger issues - Appeal allowed on this issue.
Permission to ED to inspect the records of the Special Court trying the predicate offences - HELD THAT:- The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the High Court has overlooked the provisions of Rule 231(3) of the Rules, 2019 and also Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act). But both the above contentions are without substance. Rule 231 primarily deals with the grant of certified copies of certain other documents to the accused, before filing of the Final Report. Rule 231(3) states that certified copies of unmarked documents shall not be given. The High Court has not passed any order directing the grant of certified copies of unmarked documents. All that the High Court has done is permitting the ED to have an inspection of the documents under Rule 237 and thereafter to file a proper copy application. This is not contrary to Rule 231(3).
It is not understood how an argument revolving around Section 65B of the Evidence Act is raised. Section 65B concerns the admissibility of electronic records. Without certification, ED may not be able to use those electronic records in evidence, in the prosecution under PMLA. But it does not mean that they cannot even have a look at the electronic record - there are no merits in the appeal - appeal on this issue dismissed.
Extension of time to complete further investigation - HELD THAT:- When a petition for extension of time was moved, the Court rejected it by an order dated 01.11.2021 on the ground that the prayer had become infructuous. Therefore, worried about the fate of further investigation, the victim has come up with the above appeal. But the worry of the appellant is baseless. Merely because the High Court has not granted extension of time, it does not mean that the direction to conduct further investigation has become infructuous. On the contrary, a Final Report has already been filed under Section 173(8) of the Code on 08.03.2021 in CC No.3627 of 2017 and the same has now become CC No.24 of 2021 - Appeal on this issue dismissed.
Application disposed off.
-
2023 (6) TMI 503
Seeking grant of Anticipatory Bail - delay in handing over/delivery of possession of apartments/ commercial units - concurrent jurisdiction casted upon the Court of Session and High Court - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the bail application under Section 438 even when the applicant has not approached the Court of Sessions first.
To argue upon the limited purposes for which the parties are before this Court today, reference has been made to the twin test which has been provided under the PMLA and which has been relied upon the Courts while considering cases under the Act. The twin conditions serve as a definitive test for the Courts to form an opinion - there is no doubt that in order to link any accused with the offences under the PMLA, the twin test must be satisfied. In the instant case, the respondent/ED has yet not been able to show whether that the Applicant has been charged with or even linked to the Scheduled Offences as provided under the PMLA.
Moreover, it has been settled that jail is exception and bail is the rule, as has also been observed in spirit in the landmark judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SUSHILA AGGARWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER [2020 (1) TMI 1193 - SUPREME COURT] that arrest should be done in the rarest of the rare case. Even if the authorities are not satisfied then jail is the last weapon in the hand of the Authorities.
In the matter at hand, it has been stated that three times the Applicant and the M3M Group were summoned and on all the occasions the representative on their behalf appeared and cooperated in the investigation. Further, the respondent has already seized numerous assets, including cars, cash, jewelry, etc. and also issued letters to bankers of M3M and its Group Companies directing that various bank accounts of the Company and its group concerns be marked as 'debit freeze' accounts. Moreover, the Applicant has yet not been implicated in any Scheduled Offences as provided under the PMLA and in fact, the ECIR does not even find mention of the name of the Applicant or any of the M3M Companies. It has also been submitted that the when summoned by the respondent, one of the representatives on behalf of the Applicant or the M3M Group has always appeared before the respondent for inquiry and investigation.
In view of the fact that the Applicant has not been named in the ECIR and that the respondent has not yet been able to implicate the Applicant in any of the Scheduled Offences under the PMLA, in the interest of justice as well as considering the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Applicant may be granted interim protection till the next date of hearing - in the event of any arrest of the Applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs 10,00,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Agency, subject to the conditions imposed.
Application allowed.
-
2023 (6) TMI 471
Seeking for a direction to the respondents/authorities to permit him to travel to Seychelles on condition to return to Indiaserious economic offences involving huge public money - violation of fundamental right to travel - HELD THAT:- This court finds that this is virtually, a second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, the petitioner had challenged the same LOC, which was in his way to proceed abroad, which was curtailed and failed in his attempt before this court as well as the Apex Court, he has come up before this court with a slightly modified relief of seeking permission to travel abroad on the assurance that he would come back to India to cooperate with the investigation agencies. Practically, the same LOC is preventing him to perform his travel even as of now and the relief sought for in this petition is nothing but the same old wine in a new bottle, of course with a different label.
The idea of issuing LOC is only to ensure that big offenders do not go scot free by flying away to other countries and protract or dilute the smooth investigation of criminal cases/serious economic offences involving public money pending against them by taking shelter under the cumbersome process to bring them back into the circle of investigation.
Indisputably, the petitioner is facing charges of serious economic offences involving huge public money and money laundering, warranting investigation by various investigation agencies. In some of the cases pending against the petitioner, trial has commenced, it appears and many cases are under investigation. Further, the petitioner is a foreign national. Though he claims to have strong roots in Chennai/India, he has not come out with any permanent local address also to strengthen his claim. It is the case of the respondents that the further investigation is on a crucial stage requiring the presence of the petitioner in the absence of which, the investigation process may get prolonged and diluted and therefore, under the guise of personal liberty to travel, he cannot be permitted de hors the existence of the LOC, especially, when there is no extradition treaty between India and Seychelles.
Whether declaring the LOC as ultra vires or directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to perform a short journey despite pendency of the LOC, whatever may be the relief sought for, the object of the petitioner, particularly, a foreign national, who is facing serious economic offences, a modern threat to the development of the country, is to be away from India. Considering the gravity of the offence and involvement of huge public money, this court is not inclined to entertain the camouflaging relief sought for by the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
............
|
