TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 1260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The Act has come into force with effect from st July 2005. The application moved by the present applicants for bail having been rejected by the Principal Judge, the present applications are filed. 2. The present proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are preceded by filing the N.D.P.S. Special Case No. 192/2006 on 08.12.2006 under Section 29(8)(c) and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The Special Court trying the N.D.P.S. Case passed an order to release the Applicants on bail for the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act. After considering the matter on merits an order to enlarge the Applicants on bail was passed. The Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau approached the High Court for cancellation of bail of the Applicants under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court during the pendency of proceedings kept the order granting bail in abeyance by not allowing the release of Applicants. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the High Court keeping the order of bail in abeyance, the Special Leave Petition (Criminal Appeal No.98487/ 2008) was filed in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court by its order dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. 5. In the above fact situation, the applications moved by the present applicants for seeking bail in regard to the offence of Money Laundering, are rejected by recording a contrary satisfaction under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. The Special Court has observed that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the applicants are not guilty of the offences. The Special court has also not recorded satisfaction that the applicants if released on bail, are not likely to commit any offence. 6. According to the Respondents/Complainant, the proceeds of crime generated in respect of the scheduled offence constitute the property in the present case. It is the case of the Respondents that the Company has received a sum of ₹ 7,57,26,879/in the guise of purchase of the shares of the said Company from Mrs.Madhubala Maheshwari and Mrs.Nirmala Biyani. The said two persons are said to be related to the Applicants. It is also the case of the Complainant that the Applicant/Umesh Bangur who is the Professional Director of M/s O.P.M.International Pvt.Ltd. was found in possession of the blank cheques of Rajendra Prasad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 4 of the Act. To bring home the point, reliance is ably placed on the definition of proceeds of crime finding place in section 2(u). Under the Money Laundering Act two fold objects are sought to be achieved, (1) to provide for an offence of money laundering and for its punishment and (2) attachment and confiscation of the property derived or obtained on account of criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence. Chapter III which deals with attachment, and confiscation of the property provides for the mechanism for adjudication and section 8(3) specifically provide that the attachment or retention of the seized property shall continue during pendency of the proceeding relating to any scheduled offence before the court and shall become final after the guilt of the person is proved in the trial court and order of such trial court becomes final. It can thus be seen that the properties attached or retained on seizure, would attend finality only after the guilt of the person is proved for commission of a scheduled offence and not otherwise. Sub section (5) and (6) of section 8 clinches the issue. The same reads thus: 8(5) Where on conclusion of a trial for any sche ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... generated. Unless and until proceeds of crime are generated, as a result of criminal activity, relating to a scheduled offence section 3 cannot operate. Section 3 is an extended arm or a further limb of offence over and in addition to a scheduled offence. Prima facie this being the scheme of the Act, I am of the view that when a court records a satisfaction under section 37 of he N.D.P.S. Act (a scheduled offence) that it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, no contrary satisfaction is capable of being recorded under section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, for the obvious reason that if a scheduled offence (principle offence) cannot be prima facie seen to have been committed by the applicant, which is a condition precedent for commission of offence under section 3, contrary satisfaction cannot be recorded under section 45. To put it more boldly it can be said that when satisfaction is recorded under section 37 in favour of applicant that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence then obviously i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any machinery available to the Court to ascertain that once the accused is enlarged on bail, he would not commit any offence whatsoever? 48. Such findings are required to be recorded only for the purpose of arriving at an objective finding on the basis of materials on records only for grant of bail and for no other purpose. 49. We are furthermore of the opinion that the restrictions on the power of the Court to grant bail should not be pushed too far. If the Court, having regard to the materials brought on record, is satisfied that in all probability he may not be ultimately convicted, an order granting bail may be passed. The satisfaction of the Court as regards his likelihood of not committing an offence while on bail must be construed to mean an offence under the Act and not any offence whatsoever be it a minor or major offence. If such an expansive meaning is given, even likelihood of commission of an offence under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code may debar the Court from releasing the accused on bail. A statute, it is trite, should not be interpreted in such a manner as would lead to absurdity. What would further be necessary on the part of the Court is to see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
