TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as passed since the present applicant is in jail and the maximum punishment under the offences of PMLA is seven years; so, in that way, the applicant has already served more than half punishment. Undoubtedly, there are some more cases against the present applicant wherein the FIRs have been registered under various sections of Indian Penal Code wherein trial would go and the outcome of the trial proceedings in all the predicate offences would impact the proceedings of E.D. inasmuch as the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, [[ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT] ], has held that if any accused person is discharged or acquitted in the predicate offence, he may not be prosecuted under the PMLA. Rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA - HELD THAT:- The present applicant has served more than half punishment, has not misused the process of law and appeared before the E.D. on the summons and about three years have passed since filing of the charge sheet and there is no likelihood of the trial proceedings to be concluded with expedition, therefore, in view of para-86 of the dictum of Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red to as PMLA ). The present applicant has been arrested in the predicate offence on 22.02.2019. Thereafter, the E.D. has again recorded the statement of the applicant in the jail on 09.04.2019 but did not take him into the custody. On 24.05.2019, the E.D. filed prosecution complaint under Section 45 of the PMLA for the offences prescribed under Sections 3/4 of the PMLA. On 23.09.2019, the learned trial court has taken cognizance of the prosecution complaint. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the present applicant has surrendered his passport before the learned trial court at Mau along with bail bonds in compliance of the order being passed granting him bail. As per learned counsel, the E.D. has taken custody of the present applicant on 01.09.2022 without having any cogent reasons to that effect as the present applicant was already within the judicial custody w.e.f. 22.02.2019. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the present applicant is in jail for more than four years. Learned counsel has further submitted that maximum punishment under the offences of PMLA is seven years and the present applicant has already served more than four years' peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant has committed the offence or not. Since the present applicant has already served more than half punishment, therefore, considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Ramchand Karunakaran vs. Directorate of Enforcement anr. (Criminal Appeal No.1650 of 2022, arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.6061 of 2020) dated 23.09.2022 as in the aforesaid case the Apex Court granted bail to the said accused person noticing the fact that the said accused person has completed more than three years of actual custody in connection with the offence in respect of PMLA. The aforesaid accused person was however a Senior Citizen. In the present case, the applicant has completed more than four years of actual custody in connection with the offence relating to the PMLA. Therefore, he may be enlarged on bail. The relevant para-6 reads as under:- 6. We are presently concerned with the proceedings arising out of the complaint filed under the provisions of PML Act. In the instant case, the appellant was taken in custody on 19.06.2019 and has remained in custody since then. Thus, the appellant has completed more than three years of actual custody in connection with the offence in respect of PML Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proper. However, the reason to take the custody of the present applicant has not been clarified properly. As per Sri Tripathi, the present applicant has been Managing Director of the Company, therefore, his bail application may be rejected and the period he has served in the jail before taking is custody by the E.D. shall not be treated in his total period of custody taken by the E.D. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case, admittedly, the ECIR of the E.D. has been filed on 05.09.2018 on the basis of material relating to the predicate offence bearing Case Crime No.0674 of 2017 (supra), therefore, investigation of the E.D. would be offshoot of the predicate offence. However, the E.D. investigates the offence regarding Sections 3 4 of PMLA, more particularly, relating to the Money Laundering. The present applicant is in judicial custody in that predicate offence w.e.f. 22.02.2019. Notably, between 05.09.2018 when the E.D. has filed ECIR and 22.02.2019 when the present applicant has been arrested in the predicate offence, the E.D. summoned the applicant twice to record his statement under Section 50 of the PMLA. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no likelihood of the trial proceedings to be concluded with expedition, therefore, in view of para-86 of the dictum of Apex Court in re; Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation Another, (2022) 10 SCC 51 , whereby the Apex Court has observed that more the rigour, quicker the adjudication ought to be. So the rigours of Section 45 of the PMLA are satisfied. For the convenience, para-86 of the case of Satender Kumar Antil (supra) is being reproduced herein below:- Special Acts (Category C) 86 . Now we shall come to Category C. We do not wish to deal with individual enactments as each special Act has got an objective behind it, followed by the rigour imposed. The general principle governing delay would apply to these categories also. To make it clear, the provision contained in Section 436-A of the Code would apply to the Special Acts also in the absence of any specific provision. For example, the rigour as provided under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not come in the way in such a case as we are dealing with the liberty of a person. We do feel that more the rigour, the quicker the adjudication ought to be. After all, in these types of cases numb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
