Home Case Index All Cases Money Laundering Money Laundering + HC Money Laundering - 2016 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 1014 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney laundering - bail application - nature of offence - Held that:- The offence alleged against the Petitioner is of money-laundering. The report submitted to the Special Court, on the basis of which the Special Court has taken cognizance vide its order dated 27th April 2016, reveals that M/s. K.S. Chamankar Enterprises secured RTO Development Project amounting to ₹ 4,700/- Crores from the Maharashtra Government by misrepresentation and fraud and in connivance with the public servants and the Petitioner, who was the then PWD Minister of Maharashtra State. As a result, the State Government has suffered loss to the tune of ₹ 840.16 Crores; whereas, the Petitioner and the others have reaped undue gain of the said amount. The Special Court has observed the reasons why it found that cognizance needs to be taken of the offence, having regard to the specific allegation not only in respect of generation of the proceeds of crime, but also in its laundering and thereafter issued the process. Thus, there was sufficient material before the arresting authority for the reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 r/w. Section 4 of the PML Act. If for such a serious offence in view of this prima facie material, Respondent No.2 had reason to believe that the Petitioner is guilty of the offence of moneylaundering and hence Respondent No.2 arrests the Petitioner and the Special Court remands him to Custody, then neither the arrest nor the detention of the Petitioner can be called as illegal to issue Writ of Habeas Corpus. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the very object of the PML Act would be frustrated, if the Petitioner projects some loophole or infirmity in the implementation of the provisions of the PML Act, in order to get his release from detention, that too by invoking such extra-ordinary remedy, circumventing the very specific provisions of bail, as laid down under Section 45 of the PML Act. After all, the provisions of PML Act or any Statute are to be interpreted in order to advance the substantial cause of justice and not to curtail the same in any way or to create an hindrance in achieving the said cause. If the provisions of PML Act are to be interpreted, therefore, in the proper perspective, then, we do not find that there was any such lacunae, infirmity or, much less, illegality in the arrest and detention of the Petitioner, for this Court to invoke its extra-ordinary jurisdiction for release of the Petitioner. Thus, none of the contention raised by the Petitioner to challenge his arrest as illegal holds merit. As a result, the Petitioner has failed to show that his arrest is wholly illegal, null and void and further failed to show that the Special Court has passed the Remand Order mechanically without application of mind, his petition for Habeas Corpus cannot be maintainable. Hence, we do not find this is a fit case either to admit, much less, to grant the relief, as prayed for.
|