Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2022 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 1380 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - Validity of the Supplementary Complaint under sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - vicarious liability can be fastened against the petitioner who is one of the director - HELD THAT:- It is crystal clear that there is allegation against the petitioner who happens to be director of the company whose case has been considered and dismissed. Merely because he has been cleared by the Income Tax Department allegation made against the petitioner are not rendered infructuous. It is not known whether in that income tax return the proceeds of crime have been shown by the petitioner in that return or not. Moreover in the judgment relied by Mr. Rai in the case of J. Sekar Alias Sekar Reddy [2022 (5) TMI 309 - SUPREME COURT], the facts of that case are different. The C.B.I. and E.D. has closed the case and the income tax department has also closed the case and in that scenario the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that finding of the High court is not sustainable. So far as reliance placed in Ram Kishan Rohtagi [1982 (12) TMI 218 - SUPREME COURT], the fact of that case is on different footing. That case was arising out of Food Adulteration Act and the director of the company has been made accused on presumption and in that scenario the Hon’ble Supreme Court has given finding that when there is no averment of the role of director and who is looking day to day affairs of the company, the prosecution is bad. Where as in the case in hand there is averment in the complaint that the petitioner is looking after day to day affairs of the company. The petitioner is facing charge in money laundering case. How the white collor criminals affect the fibre of country economic structure, has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the several judgments. This crime has been made in well planned manner and not in the hit of moment as occurred in section 302 of I.P.C. Further the petitioner has not taken care of the order of the High Court whereby he has been provided interim protection. The Magistrate is only required to pass an order issuing summons to the accused. Such an order issuing summons to the accused is based upon subject to satisfaction of the Magistrate considering the police report and other documents and satisfying himself that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. In a case based upon the police report, at the stage of issuing the summons to the accused, the Magistrate is not required to record any reason. In case, if the chargesheet is rejected or not taken on file, then the Magistrate is required to record his reasons for rejection of the chargesheet and for not taking on file. Cognizance was taken considering the report filed by the E.D. Order of issuance of process is not illegal. Mens rea is subject matter of trial. No case of interference is made out. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.
|