TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 662X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days. Fact remains that order of the Appellate Tribunal was pronounced on 29.08.2019, however, as argued by learned counsel for applicant, the same was received on 11.09.2019 whereas the captioned appeal is filed on 22.01.2020. As per Section 42 of PMLA, 2002 as mentioned above, the maximum limit to condone delay is (60 days + 60 days) 120 days whereas, captioned appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation - thus, this Court has no power to condone the delay beyond 120 days. Thus, the present application is dismissed. Delay cannot be condoned - COD application dismissed. - CRL.A. 95/2020, CRL.M.As. 1516-17/2020 & CRL.M.A. 3338/2020 - - - Dated:- 12-3-2020 - MR. SURESH KUMAR KAIT J. Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Mr. Agni Sen and Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Advs. Respondents Through: Mr. Bishwajit Bhattacharya and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advs. for R-1 2 JUDGMENT (ORAL) CRL.M.A. 1518/2020 (delay) 1. Vide the present application, the applicant-Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi, seeks condonation of delay of 80 days in fili ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingly, non-bailable warrants of arrest against him was obtained in another case involving similar transactions, which is being investigated by Enforcement Directorate. 5. As per investigation, proceeds of crime to the tune of Euro 1 million and USD 1 million have been found transferred from the account of M/s Interstellar Technologies Ltd. Mauritius to the account of M/s Windsor Group Holdings Ltd. in the bank account bearing No.143134 maintained with UBS Singapore out of which, USD 830,000 was further transferred to M/s RAKGT in February 2010, but the same was also maintained under the head Omar Ali Balsharaf-GK in the books of accounts of M/s RAKGT. 6. During course of investigation, search was conducted on 22.09.2014 at the premises of Mr. Gautam Khaitan and various documents were recovered from the seized hard disks, two email communications dated 06.10.2008 and 23.10.2008 between Deepak Goyal of M/s OP Khaitan Co and M/s ML Administrators (registered agent of M/s Interstellar Technologies Limited, Mauritius) have been retrieved which proves the complicity in transferring proceeds of crime to the account of M/s RAKGT from the account of M/s Interstellar Technologies Lim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... estigation, which was put on hold with the BSE on 13.02.2018. 11. Further, Mr. Anoop Gupta, Director of M/s KRBL in his statement recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA also stated that said money belongs to M/s Omar Ali Balsharaf, which was sent by him to M/s RAKGT as loan but no related documents have been provided to conceal exact nature of transactions between M/s RAKGT and Omar Ali Balsharaf. Further, no clarification about maintaining two ledger accounts in the name of Omar Ali Balsharaf-DO and Omar Ali Balsharaf-GK in the books of accounts of M/s RAKGT was given, which shows that all ill-gotten money has been parked in the books of accounts of M/s RAKGT under the head Omar Ali Balsharak-GK. Thereafter, vide letter dated 27.02.2018, Mr. Omar Ali Balsharaf was asked to provide details of their dealings with M/s RAKGT and communications related to the share trading and their response is still awaited. Also, Mr. Omar Ali Balsharaf and Mr. Abdullah Ali Balsharaf were summoned vide summons dated 14.03.2018 and contacted by telephone on 14.03.2018 seeking information about details of share transactions dated 12.02.2018 but their response is still awaited, despite the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of respondent No.2 was issued to M/s SMC Global Securities Ltd. 14. Since neither respondent No.1 nor respondent No.2 had joined investigation and had already attempted to shift their assets outside India, there was a possibility that they might further try to part with proceeds of crime held with respondent No.3. Therefore, another search was conducted at the premises of respondent No.3 on 14.06.2018. During the search dated 14.06.2018, 64,94,891 shares of M/s KRBL traded on 12.02.2018 by respondent Nos.1 2 held by respondent No.4 and credited back to account of respondent No.3 were found and frozen vide an order under Section 17(1A) of PMLA. 15. Further, during search, compliance officer of respondent No.3 declared that an amount of ₹ 30,35,006.90 pertaining to the shares of M/s KRBL were also available in their BSE Settlement Account bearing Account No.000405071796 with ICICI Bank, CP New Delhi. The compliance officer also stated that neither he nor anyone in his company would withdraw or transfer said amount. Accordingly, a letter was also sent to ICICI bank directing them to freeze aforementioned amount of ₹ 30,35,006.90. 16. In view of above, vide ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of passing the final judgement while coming to the conclusion that the ledger entry in the account of RAKGT is part of the bribe amount, the appellants shall deposit the said amount with the respondent as equivalent to value thereof. The liberty is also granted to the appellants to move the application before the Special Court for waiving of such condition if charges are not framed against the appellants. 108. All the four appeals are partly allowed by modifying the impugned orders, on the compliance is made as per terms mentioned in the preceding paras within the period of one month. Once the compliance is made, all shares shall stand de-freezed as the same are admittedly not acquired from proceed of crime. 20. Being aggrieved the applicant/appellant has filed the present appeal along with present application i.e. CRL.M.A.1518/2018 under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1973 seeking condonation of delay of 80 days in filing the appeal. 21. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is settled law that a law of limitation is enshrined in the maxim interest reipublicaeut sit finislitium i.e. it is for the general welfare that there should be an end to litigation. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2019 and same was pronounced in open Court and Mr.D.P.Singh, counsel for applicant herein was present there at that time. However, certified copy of the same was received on 11.09.2019, whereas present appeal is filed on 22.01.2020 vide diary No.60434/2020. 26. Accordingly, on the other hand, Mr.Bishwajit Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 submits that captioned appeal which is filed on 22.01.2020 is time-barred under Section 42 of PMLA, 2002 which reads as under: Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal may file an appeal to the High Court within sixty days from the date of communication of the decision or order of the Appellate Tribunal to him on any question of law or fact arising out of such order: Provided that the High Court may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding sixty days. Explanation .--For the purposes of this section, High Court means- (i) the High Court within the jurisdiction of which the aggrieved party ordinarily resides or car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this would also make no difference in view of the language of the proviso to Section 421(3) which contains mandatory or peremptory negative language and speaks of a second period not exceeding 45 days, which would have the same effect as the expression but not thereafter used in Section 34(3) proviso of the Arbitration Act, 1996. 31. In case of P. Radha Bai vs. P. Ashok Kumar : (2019) 13 SCC 445 , the Supreme Court held as under: 35. This Court in Popular Construction case followed the same approach when it relied on the phrase but not thereafter to hold that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was expressly exclused : (SCC pp. 474-75, para 12) 12. One further thing remains-and that is that learned Counsel for the Appellant pointed out the difference between the expression used in the Arbitration Act as construed by Popular Construction (supra) and its absence in the proviso in Section 421(3). For the reasons given above, we are of the view that this would also make no difference in view of the language of the proviso to Section 421(3) which contains mandatory or peremptory negative language and speaks of a second period not exceeding 45 days, which would have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal within the said period, allow it to be filed within a further period not exceeding 60 days. 37. Fact remains that order of the Appellate Tribunal was pronounced on 29.08.2019, however, as argued by learned counsel for applicant, the same was received on 11.09.2019 whereas the captioned appeal is filed on 22.01.2020. As per Section 42 of PMLA, 2002 as mentioned above, the maximum limit to condone delay is (60 days + 60 days) 120 days whereas, captioned appeal is filed beyond the period of limitation. Thus, as per the dictum of the Supreme Court in catena of judgments and some of them discussed above, this Court has no power to condone the delay beyond 120 days. Thus, the present application is dismissed. 38. It is pertinent to mention here that the alternative prayer of the applicant in CRL.M.A.3338/2020 is to withdraw the appeal with liberty to file the purported appeal which was filed on 24.12.2019 vide diary No.1621374/2019. However, said appeal is not before this Court. In view of above facts, the lacunae cannot be allowed to be filled-up, therefore, I hereby reject the prayer made by the applicant in CRL.M.A.3338/2020 and same is accordingly dismissed. 39. The ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
