9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 420 IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and after investigation has filed charge sheet which has been taken on file in the above said calendar case. 2. The allegations are that M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., (M/s.STSL) a public limited company was engaged in organizing retailing by establishing chain shores and selling products in FMCG, Pharma, Groceries, Fruits, Vegetables etc and the petitioner herein was the Managing Director and Tmt.R.Mangalam was the Director. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was the only active Director who was handling the day-to-day affairs of the company such as availing loan from various banks and was making decisions with respect to expansion and also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Bank of Baroda and with dishonest and deceitful means, diverted the funds and failed to repay the loan amount which resulted in the account becoming Non Performing Asset (NPA) and thereby, caused wrongful loss to the bank to an extent of Rs. 77.39 crores as on 31.03.2009 and also availed huge credit facilities from various other banks to the extent of Rs. 700 crores. The above said company also maintained different set of books of accounts and fraudulently obtained certificates from Chartered Accountants for the purpose of utilizing it to obtain loan from various banks including Bank of Baroda and thereby the petitioner, being the first accused and the company, being the second accused, had committed the offence punishable under Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s defence and would further contend that the writ petition is premature and is liable to be dismissed. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 8. The respondent, in exercise of powers under Section 50(2) and (3) of the Money Laundering Act, has issued summons dated 25.03.2015, calling upon the petitioner to appear along with documents as per the annexure. It is relevant to extract Section 68 of the Money Laundering Act, which reads as under: "68. Notice, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.- No notice, summons, order, document or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in purs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on fail to give evidence as mentioned in the schedule, he shall be liable to penal proceedings under the Act. 10. Any statement obtained from the petitioner does not infringe the constitutional guarantee of protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, as held so by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in C.Sampath Kumar v. Enforcement Officer [(1997) 8 SCC 358]. It cannot be said that the respondent lacks jurisdiction to issue summons or has no authority of law to issue summons for the purpose of aiding investigation under the provisions of Money Laundering Act. This Court, on a careful consideration of the materials, is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit. 11. In the result, this Wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
