TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 2018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is Court has jurisdiction is again misplaced. Thus, no part of cause of action at all arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court and there was no question of filing any petition in respect of PMLA Case No. 4 of 2015, pending in the court of designated City Civil Court and Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, or to challenge the summons issued by the said court to the petitioners - Punjab and Haryana High Court does not have any territorial jurisdiction over these matters, and the territorial jurisdiction is that of Bombay High Court. The custodial interrogation in the alleged huge scam like the present one could be most essential. However, in order to abuse the entire process of interrogation and investigation, these petitions were lodged in this Court and interim orders were obtained. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioners are fully guilty of misusing the process of law and interfering in the administration of justice. The petitioners are, therefore, liable to pay exemplary costs to the Union of India through the Enforcement Directorate. It is already found that the petitioners have successfully obtained interim orders from this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vs. State of Maharashtra, 2000 (3) Crimes 222, as regards the issue of jurisdiction and issued notice of motion and also made an interim order exempting the personal appearance of petitioner No. 4-Kamal Kant Dewan and petitioner No. 5-Amit Dewan. Thereafter, by another order dated 04.08.2016, this Court injuncted the respondent-Enforcement Directorate from arresting petitioner-Kamal Kant Dewan. 3. In CRWP-984-2016, this Court had by an interim order dated 25.07.2016, granted bail to the petitioners in the said petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that accordingly bail has been granted by the trial Court and the charge-sheet has also been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to continuation of bail, pursuant to the interim orders made by this Court. Facts: 4. The facts giving rise to these petitions are as under:- According to the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai, a scam took place in Mumbai in respect of National Spot Exchange Limited, which is a platform for trading into various commodities under various segments. The principle accused, according to the respondent-Enforcement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the complainant-Pankaj Saraf was also a member of the Exchange, who lodged the complaint with the MRA Marg police. He submitted that the Government of India had also issued a Notification dated 12.07.2013 restraining the National Spot Exchange Limited from trading. The counsel submitted that this Court has territorial jurisdiction and in support thereof he cited the following reasons:- i) The place of residence of the petitioners is Chandigarh/Panchkula/Ludhiana; ii) The properties which were attached and factory, etc., are located at Ludhiana, within the jurisdiction of this Court; iii) The Electronic Exchange is also at Ludhiana where some transactions had taken place, which is also clear from the flow of funds chart enclosed by the respondent-complainant. The transactions in Ludhiana industry/factory itself clearly show that no offence was committed at Mumbai and the offence, if any, for the sake of arguments, was committed at Ludhiana. Therefore, the cause of action is very much within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court; iv) The provisions of Section 42 of the Act regarding appeal, also show the intention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s never wanted to approach the Designated Special Court itself at Mumbai; namely, City Civil Court (Designated Court for the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act) at Mumbai or the Bombay High Court, for the reasons best known to the petitioners. For us, the reasons are unfathomable. That apart, the petitioners did not file order dated 13.01.2016 by which process was issued, passed in PMLA Complaint No. 4 of 2015. That is the basic order giving rise to cause of action. Counsel for the petitioners was specifically asked as to what were the reasons for not filing the order issuing process which must be a reasoned order to which the petitioners' counsel did not have any answer. Counsel for the petitioners was also asked as to why the petitioners or their counsel did not appear before the designated court at Mumbai and challenge his jurisdiction, demerits of the complaint and so on and so forth, before the same court. Counsel for the petitioners was also asked as to why the petitioners did not approach the Bombay High Court under the same jurisdiction; namely, Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure or Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, for the grievance made in the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xxvii), M/s. Spincot Textiles Pvt. Ltd., (xxviii) Shri Ghanta Kameswara Rao, (xxix) M/s. White Water Foods Pvt. Ltd., (xxx) M/s. Bharat Food Agro Products, (xxxi) M/s. VIR Foods Ltd., (xxxii) Shri Kamal Kant Dewan, (xxxiii) Shri Amit Dewan, (xxxiv) M/s. N.K. Proteins Ltd., (xxxv) M/s. N.K. Industries Ltd., (xxxvi) M/s. N.K. Corporation, (xxxvii) Shri Nilesh Patel, (xxxviii) Shri Nimish Patel, (xxxix) Shri Darshan Patel, (xl) M/s. Yathuri Associates, (xli) M/s. Naraingarh Sugar Mills Ltd., (xlii) M/s. Rahul Sales Ltd., (xliii) Shri Gagan Suri, (xliv) Shri Rahul Anand, (xlv) Shri Sanjeev Bhasin, (xlvi) M/s. Namdhari Food International Pvt. Ltd., (xlvii) Shri Iqbal Singh Bal, (xlviii) Shri Inder Singh Bal, (ii) Shri Surjit Singh Bal, (I) M/s. Lotus Refineries Pvt. Ltd., (Ii) M/s. Lotus Allied Mediamatics Pvt. Ltd., (lii) M/s. Lotus Builders, (liii) Shri Arun Sharma, (liv) M/s. Namdhari Rice General Mills, (lv) Shri Daljit Singh Bal, (lvl) Shri Jaspal Singh Bal, (lvii) Shri Jai Singh Bal, (lviii) M/s. Swastik Overseas Corporation, (lix) M/s. Manan Ago Pvt. Ltd., (lx) M/s. Issan Overseas Ltd., (lxi) Shri Rajesh Mehta, (lxii) Shri Rajiv Todi, (lxii) Shri Jignesh Shah, (lxiv) Shri Shr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plaint itself was filed at Mumbai in the designated court at Mumbai, the order issuing process was passed by the court at Mumbai, the summons were issued from Mumbai to appear before the Mumbai Court. The offences, from the reading of the complaint, took place at the National Spot Exchange Limited, Mumbai. The cause of action, thus, clearly arose within the territorial jurisdiction of Mumbai courts. Thus, the place of jurisdiction of the said complaint and the cause of action mentioned therein is clearly at Mumbai and no part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. 12. The submission made by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners reside at Chandigarh/Panchkula/Ludhiana or that the attachment of properties at Ludhiana was made and that the petitioners received summons at Chandigarh/Panchkula/Ludhiana, is wholly misconceived and misplaced and must be rejected outright. The residence of the accused persons cannot give cause of action. The attachment of factory/warehouses, etc. located at Ludhiana does not give any cause of action. Section 42 of the Act relates to appeal against the order of Appellate Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interfering in the administration of justice. The petitioners are, therefore, liable to pay exemplary costs to the Union of India through the Enforcement Directorate. We have given conscious thought to the entire matter and we find, looking to the huge scam and the successful attempt made by the petitioners to bypass the investigation, exemplary costs in the sum of Rs. 50 lacs per petitioner would subserve the ends of justice. 14. Since we have already found that the petitioners have successfully obtained interim orders from this Court i.e. exemption from personal appearance and bail, it is necessary to set the things right keeping in mind the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit'. We also hold that the grant/furnishing of bail pursuant to the interim order made by this Court, becomes inconsequential. Hence, it will be necessary for us to grant liberty to the designated court at Mumbai to hear both the parties in PMLA Case No. 4 of 2015 to decide the question of custody of the petitioners for custodial interrogation by the Enforcement Directorate. 15. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in the facts of the present case, do not have any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
