9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (3) TMI 1283 - HC - Indian LawsBail Application - Section 3 read with Section 17(1)(2) of Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002 - time limitation to grant Bail - Held that - the words used in the non obstante clause are of restrictive nature and clearly indicative of its scope of operation. The power to grant bail under Section 439 is not restricted by the limitations engrafted under Section 45 of the Act. In this perspective if one examines the materials collected in the course of investigation as reflected in the subsequent complaint I find that there are sufficient materials on record which show that the petitioner as a Senior Field Officer had played a role in monitoring the activities of the agents of the company in dealing with the proceeds of crime which had accrued in the credit of the company pursuant to the commission of the scheduled offence for which prosecution has been launched against the said company. From the uncontroverted accusations it appears that the petitioner as a senior field officer knowingly monitored the activities of the agents of the accused company to secret the proceeds of crime and assiduously wanted to create an opinion that such assets constituted untainted money in the hands of the accused company or its agents - It is not possible for a reasonable man of ordinary prudence to come to a conclusion at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the aforesaid offence. In the absence of such a conclusion the limitations of Section 45 applies with full force restricting my discretion to grant bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is true that the petitioner is in custody for 268 days but in view of the materials on record prima facie connecting him with the commission of offence punishable under Section 3 of the P.M.L. Act read with Section 70(1) of the said Act and bearing in mind the restrictions engrafting in Section 45 thereof I am unable to accede to the prayer for bail of the petitioner at this stage - Bail application rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Grant of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in light of restrictions under Section 45 of the PML Act. 2. Legality of the supplementary complaint and cognizance taken by the Special Court. 3. Petitioner's involvement and role in the alleged offence under the PML Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Grant of Bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Restrictions under Section 45 of the PML Act: The petitioner, in custody for 268 days, sought bail. The primary argument was that the powers of the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are not limited by Section 45 of the PML Act. The court examined Sections 44 and 45 of the PML Act, noting that Section 45 imposes stringent conditions for bail, including the necessity for the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail and for the court to be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail. The court referred to precedents, including Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal and Union of India vs. Rattan Mallik, which held that special laws override general provisions of the Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the limitations under Section 45 of the PML Act do restrict the High Court's power to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Legality of the Supplementary Complaint and Cognizance by the Special Court: The petitioner challenged the filing of the supplementary complaint and the cognizance taken by the Special Court, arguing that there cannot be a second cognizance of the same offence. The court noted that the supplementary complaint was filed pursuant to further investigation authorized by the Special Court. It cited Directorate of Enforcement vs. Deepak Mukherjee, which allows further investigation under special statutes like the PML Act. The court also referred to S.R. Sukumar vs. S. Sunaad Raghuram, which permits the amendment of complaints under certain conditions. The court concluded that the supplementary complaint and the subsequent cognizance were lawful and not prejudicial to the accused. 3. Petitioner's Involvement and Role in the Alleged Offence under the PML Act: The petitioner argued that his involvement did not transpire during the initial investigation and that he joined the company after the alleged offences occurred. The court examined the materials collected during the investigation, which indicated the petitioner's role in monitoring agents and dealing with proceeds of crime. The court referred to Section 3 of the PML Act, which defines the offence of money laundering in broad terms, including anyone involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime. The court found sufficient material to implicate the petitioner in the offence under Section 3 of the PML Act and concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner was not guilty. Conclusion: The court rejected the bail application, emphasizing that the stringent conditions under Section 45 of the PML Act were not met. The court also upheld the legality of the supplementary complaint and the subsequent cognizance by the Special Court. The observations made were specific to the bail application and would not affect subsequent proceedings.
|
