9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Counsel, Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Special Counsel for ED, Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Mr. Ankit Bhatia, Ms. Madhumitha Kesavan, Mr. Hitarth Raja, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Kavish Garach, Ms. Manisha Dubey, Advocates, Mr. G.N. Ghosh, Deputy Legal Advisor, Mr. Gaurav Saini, Assistant Legal Advisor. *** Ritu Bahri, J. 1. The petitioners Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal have filed these petitions challenging vires of Section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "PMLA") and have further made prayer for quashing the orders dated 15.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 26.06.2023 (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) respectively whereby they had been ordered to be remanded to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody. Their prayer f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... companies by IREO group companies after layering of funds and all the companies through which funds were routed by IREO group to M3M group were shell companies owned/controlled/managed by M3M group and its controller only. The involvement of M3M group in money laundering with Mr. Lalit Goyal of IREO group was revealed. The company M/s M3M India Limited was founded by the petitioner Basant Bansal and one Roop Kumar Bansal and the petitioner Pankaj Bansal was also a Director in this group of companies. Sh. Lalit Goyal had been arrested and was subsequently given concession of bail. During the course of investigation, the present petitioners were also found involved in laundering the money diverted by IREO group of companies and were booked al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rested in FIR No.6 of 2023 on 14.06.2023 and were initially ordered to be remanded to the custody of Enforcement Directorate and then to judicial custody. In these petitions, they have challenged the orders whereby they had been remanded to custody i.e. orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) respectively on the ground that these orders are in violation of procedure established by law and have been passed in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that the arrest of the petitioners was illegal and in violation of the safeguards laid down under Section 19 of PMLA. The remand order had been passed in routine by the Court and the fact that the petitioners were arrested only on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the reliefs so prayed could be considered by a Single Bench as per the roster assigned by the High Court. This contention had been resisted by learned counsel for the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners were very much entitled to claim the remaining reliefs from this Court even after rejection of their prayer as to challenge of vires of Section 19 of the PMLA. Since we have already considered the question as to vires of provisions of PMLA which was one of the reliefs as claimed by the petitioners and have decided the same, therefore, in our opinion, the remaining reliefs as claimed by the petitioners can also be considered by this Court especially in view of the fact that the petitioners have not raised any objection qua the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... buyers, had been siphoned off in connivance with the present petitioners, Sh. Roop Bansal who along with the petitioners were managing the affairs of M3M group of companies being Managing Director/Directors/founders. He argued that it had also come in the investigation conducted so far by respondent No.2 that the petitioners in connivance with Mr. Lalit Goyal and Mr. Roop Bansal who were accused before CBI Court, Panchkula had bribed Mr. Sudhir Parmar, CBI Judge and his nephew by giving undue favours to them and in order to seek favourable orders from the CBI Court in respect of the previous FIR in which the petitioners and above named Mr. Lalit Goyal and Mr. Roop Bansal were cited as accused. Therefore, he strenuously argued that no case f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 256, wherein similar observations were made and which has also been relied upon by the respondents. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that no ground has been made out for setting aside the orders (Annexures P-18, P-20 and P-21) respectively as passed by learned Duty/Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula whereby the petitioners have been remanded to the custody of respondent No.2 and then to judicial custody on 15.06.2023, 20.06.2023 and 26.06.2023. Accordingly, prayer made by the petitioners to that extent is rejected. 8. On perusal of the material placed on record, it has been revealed that the allegations as levelled against Judicial Officer namely, Mr. Sudhir Parmar who is alleged to have taken undue favours from the present p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
