TMI Blog2021 (4) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15. In order to support the said allegation, the Government Advocate produced copy of the statements given by A-14, A-15 and further statement given by A-4, which clearly reveal the role of the present petitioners. Therefore, once prima facie allegations against these petitioners are made out, trial court can proceed with the complaint by framing charges. While deciding petition u/s.245(2) Cr.P.C., the court need not conduct a roving enquiry on the materials placed by the prosecution and the admissibility and the validity of the statement given by the other accused have to be decided only at the time of trial and the defence taken by the accused need not be considered in deciding the petition u/s.245(2) Cr.P.C. It can be decided only aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quiry, dismissed the said petition. Challenging the said order passed by the Sessions Judge, the accused No.14 has filed Crl.R.C.1252 of 2018 and accused No.15 has filed Crl.R.C.No.1253 of 2018. Since both the petitioners filed the petition jointly u/s.245(2) of Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Judge, the learned Sessions Judge passed the order on 23.04.2018. Now both the petitioners have filed these revisions separately. Therefore, both the revisions are taken up together for passing common order. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the respondent does not disclose any offence under Section 3 of PMLA Act, 2002, against these petitioners. None of the documents has any connection to the alleged commission of offences. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these petitioners in the complaint, it is for the petitioners A-14, A-15 to defend the same before the trial court. The court can proceed further by framing of charges and the defence taken by the accused need not be taken into consideration and the documents produced by the petitioners need not be considered at this stage. The learned Sessions Judge rightly dismissed the petition filed by these petitioners for discharging them from the case and there is no merit in the revisions and they are liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the records. 6. Admittedly, the respondent authority filed the complaint against 15 persons u/s.245(2)Cr.P.C., read with Sections 3, 4 and 8 (5) of PMLA Act, in which these petitioners have been arraye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
