9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. ECIR/MBZO1/15/2013 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) and also various directions, to quash the search and seizure of the account and to declare the search conducted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act as illegal and unconstitutional and other various reliefs. 2. Heard the arguments of learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner counsel and learned Special counsel for the respondents-ED. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent-ED registered a FIR in ECIR/MBZO-1/15/2013 based upon the FIR registered by the Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai in Crime No.316/2013 for various IPC offences and the offence under Sections 120B and 420 of IPC are the schedule offences under the Prevent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , they have not taken any action in this matter and after staying the predicate offence by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2023, the ED raided the company of the petitioner and freezed the account due to which, the petitioner is suffering heavy loss and the company required to make salary to the employees, the company has to pay GST, TDS deductions, etc., the company required to pay Rs.12.9 crores per month and various expenditures and because of freezing the account, the company would put into hardship and loss, therefore, prayed for defreezing the account by declaring the search conducted by the ED as illegal. The learned Senior counsel further contended that the very search and seize is illegal in view of the stay granted by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounts which are at Bengaluru and Chennai were freezed. The petitioner required to pay salaries and other maintenance including the taxes, therefore, he has contended that the seized materials cannot be kept in their custody for more than 30 days, therefore, it was forwarded to the Adjudicating Authority. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition. 8. The respondent counsel in reply has contended that when there is an alternative and efficacy remedy available, the petitioner cannot approach this Court. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 9. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, it is an admitted fact that the Oshiwara Police, Mumbai registered a FIR against the petitioner in Crime No.316/2013 for various IPC offe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction. In this regard, the learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Ilanahai vs. The State of Maharashtra in Criminal.O.P.No.22498/2014 and M.P.No.1/2014 reported in 2015 (1) MWN (Cr.) 618, held at Paragraph Nos.38, 39 and 40 which are as under: "38. From the above judgment of the Larger Bench, now it is crystal clear that what is relevant for the High Court to entertain a Petition under Section 482, is not the cause of action as the term "cause of action" is foreign to Criminal law. In Navinchandra N. Majithia v. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (4) CTC 60 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not dealt with the question as to whether the power of the High Court under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure beyond the territorial limits of the said High Court based on the fact that the part of offence is committed outside the territorial limits of the said High Court. 40. Thus, in my considered opinion, so far as the power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of quashing the F.I.R. is concerned, the only criteria is the situs of the Authority who has registered the case and not the place of commission of the crime either in full or in part. Similarly, the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash a Criminal case also does not extend beyond the territorial limits of the said High Court if the case is pending on the file of an Au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Office are not facts which by themselves would confer territorial jurisdiction on this Court. A perusal of both the summons and the arrest order reveal that they were issued by Mr. D. Shanmugam, Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, Camp at Delhi Zonal Office at 10-A, Jam Nagar House, Akbar Road, New Delhi-110011. This Court is of the opinion that this would imply that Mr. D. Shanmugam, at the relevant time, had only camped at the Delhi Zonal Office for the sake of convenience and it cannot be inferred that the Delhi Zonal Office was directly related to the affairs of the case against the petitioner under PMLA, 2002. Further, the present petitioner was arrested in Delhi because he was available in Delhi. In the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
