9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dian Navy for over 10 years. The applicant was arrested on 17/12/2020 in connection with ECIR/MBZO-I/40/2020 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (hereafter "ED", for short) for the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereafter "PMLA", for short). The subject ECIR came to be registered on the basis of the scheduled offences punishable under Sections 402, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter "IPC", for short) registered vide MECR No.3 of 2020 of Yellow Gate Police Station, Mumbai, which was thereafter transferred to Economic Offences Wing, Mumbai (hereafter "EOW", for short) and registered as MECR No.5 of 2020. The EOW, after conducting a thorough investigation in relation to the said FIR, has filed a C-Summary report before the Metropolitan Magistrate's 47th Court at Esplanade. The Magistrate vide his order dated 14/09/2022 accepted the same. The first informant (Ramesh Iyer) filed an affidavit of no objection for the acceptance of C-Summary report. 3. It is the contention of learned Senior Advocates for the applicants that as on date there is no predicate offence whatsoever and sinc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under the contract was to supply the specified number of security guards, however with a view to defraud MMRDA, less number of guards were supplied. Topsgrup claimed excess payment even in respect of the guards who were not deployed. The applicant -Marath and other accused being responsible officers are alleged to be beneficiaries of the transaction. So far as the applicant-Amit Balasaheb Chandole in Criminal Bail Application No.1546 of 2021 is concerned, he was the one who facilitated the contract between the Topsgrup and MMRDA and it is alleged that he was also a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime. The applicant-Amit was arrested on 25/11/2020. The ED registered the ECIR on 31/10/2020. The Bail Application filed by Amit came to be rejected by the trial Court. The present application is filed for bail in April 2021. However, subsequent facts are brought on record that a C-Summary was filed by the Yellow Gate Police Station on 27/12/2021. Application for interim bail of Amit and Marath at Exhibit 45 and 47 is decided by a common order. Though Amit's is a regular application for bail, I have considered the grant of interim bail to Amit on parity as a substantive challenge is laid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd learned counsel for the parties. The ED registered the ECIR dated 31/10/2020 on the basis of the FIR dated 28/10/2020 which was lodged at the instance of the complainant Mr. Ramesh Iyer, who had approached the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Pursuant to the arrest of the applicant-Marath by the ED on 07/12/2020, a detailed investigation was carried out by the ED and the chargesheet came to be filed. The Yellow Gate Police Station filed the C-Summary report in respect of the FIR lodged against the applicant. The complainant gave his no objection and ultimately the C-Summary was accepted on 14/09/2022 by the Metropolitan Magistrate. 10. At this juncture, I may refer to the pertinent observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra) decided on 27/07/2022. Paragraph 33 reads thus :- "33. Tersely put, it is only such property which is derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence can be regarded as proceeds of crime. The authorities under the 2002 Act cannot resort to action against any person for money-laundering on an assumption t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urisdictional police and/or pending enquiry/trial including by way of criminal complaint before the competent forum. If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him." 12. Learned Counsel Shri Venegaonkar emphasized that it is only in the context of there being an order of discharge, acquittal or because of quashing of the criminal case (scheduled offence) that the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra) can be made applicable. According to him, this is a case where C-Summary report has been accepted by the Metropolitan Magistrate which the ED proposes to challenge and therefore not covered by the decision in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra). He further submits that the limitation of 90 days for filing the Revision is not yet over and therefore the trial Court is justified in refusing the applications for grant of interim bail to the applicants. 13. The C-Summary has been accepted by the Metropolitan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these are matters to be taken into consideration by the Special Court trying the PMLA case and my observations therefore, may be construed as prima facie in nature for the purpose of considering the request for releasing the applicants on interim bail. Once the C-Summary report has been filed and accepted by the Court of competent jurisdiction, in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra), prima facie, there can be no offence of money laundering against the applicants. I do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Venegaonkar that till the period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate accepting the C-Summary report is over, the application for bail is not tenable. The question is of liberty of an individual which is valuable. The period of 90 days for filing the Revision challenging the acceptance of the C-Summary report cannot be read to mean as an automatic stay to the order accepting C-Summary report. The Revision is but a statutory remedy provided by law to challenge the impugned order (acceptance of C-Summary). The limitation prescribed for filing the Revision cannot be constr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... releasing the applicants on interim bail for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore and should not influence the Special Judge (PMLA) while deciding any other applications or the main matter on merits. Having regard to the facts of the present case, on filing of a C-Summary report in the EOW case, in the light of the observations quoted abbove in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and ors. (supra), the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA will not apply. The charge-sheet has been filed. The investigation is complete. 18. Hence, the following order :- O R D E R (i) The Exhibit 45 and Exhibit 47 filed before the Special Judge (PMLA) are allowed. (ii) The applicants-Amit Balasaheb Chandole and Marath Sashidharan be released on interim bail in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or more sureties of the like amount. (iii) The applicants are permitted to furnish cash bail surety in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each for a period of 4 weeks in lieu of surety. (iv) The applicants shall report to the ED once in a fortnight on the 1st and 15th day of every month between 10.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m. (v) The applicants shall not leave the jurisdiction of Greater Mumbai without express permission of the Spec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
