2014 (11) TMI 1104 - HC - Money Laundering

Legality and validity of the order of issue of warrant passed by the Designated Judge under P.M.L. Act 2002 - Held that - On a plain reading of the provisions of law it appears prima facie that if the offence is heinous, the Court may be justified in issuing non bailable warrants simultaneously with the order of process, but it appears on a plain reading of Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that at the same time the Court concerned is also obliged to satisfy itself by recording reasons that the accused persons are likely to evade the process of law or have already absconded. Issuance of non bailable warrant should be avoided except in case of heinous crime or it is feared that accused is likely to tamper or destroy the evidences or is likely to evade the process of law. We do not find any such findings recorded by the designated judge in her order dated 29th October, 2014 while issuing warrant. Thus it is of the view that the petitioners have been able to make out a strong prima facie case to have an interim order to the limited extent that, the order passed by the Designated Judge for issue of warrant shall remain stayed from its operation, till the next date of hearing.

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality and validity of the order of issue of warrant under P.M.L. Act 2002.
2. Prayers made in the complaint regarding money laundering offences.
3. Justification for issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused.
4. Compliance with the legal provisions and Supreme Court guidelines for issuing warrants.

Analysis:
1. The principal contention in this case revolves around the legality and validity of the order of issue of warrant passed by the Designated Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering (P.M.L.) Act 2002. The petitioners raised concerns regarding the issuance of the warrant dated 29th October, 2012, by the Designated Judge.

2. The complaint lodged against the applicants pertains to the offence of money laundering under Section 4 of the P.M.L. Act 2002, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Deputy Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, filed a supplementary complaint on 29th October, 2014, seeking cognizance of the offence, process against the accused, confiscation of properties involved in money laundering, and issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused.

3. The petitioners argued that the Designated Judge should not have issued the warrant without sufficient grounds, especially when there was no indication that the accused would not comply with summons or had absconded. Reference was made to Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a Supreme Court decision highlighting the conditions necessitating the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

4. The Supreme Court's guidance emphasized that the power to issue warrants is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, considering personal liberty and societal interests. It was noted that unless the accused is involved in a heinous crime or likely to tamper with evidence, evade the law, or harm someone, non-bailable warrants should be avoided. The court must balance the seriousness of the offence with the necessity for issuing a warrant.

5. The Designated Judge's order lacked findings indicating that the accused were likely to evade the law or had absconded, as required by Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court stayed the operation of the warrant pending further hearings, based on the petitioners' strong prima facie case. The matter was scheduled for the next hearing on 17th November, 2014, with direct service permitted to the concerned parties.