2017 (5) TMI 1645 - HC - Money Laundering

Offence under PMLA - anticipatory bail - Held that - Allegations made against the petitioner and his son are serious in nature. Proceedings in terms of ECIR and IPC are distinct in nature and operate in different fields. Even though the offence falls under Part A after the amendment and before the Amendment of 2013, it was under Part B of the Schedule, still prima facie nature of the case can be looked into while deciding the anticipatory bail. Petitioner was directed to join the proceedings by this Court passed in Civil Writ Petition. Thereafter on nine occasions, summons were issued to him, but he did not turn up and did not comply with the aforesaid order. The pleadings made in the present petition are conspicuously silent about the rigor of non-appearance in view of aforesaid order except a meagre recital in para No.5 of the petition that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of and a review application is pending consideration. In view of above, the conduct of the petitioner is not such which entitles him the extra ordinary relief of anticipatory bail. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Anticipatory bail application in an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.
2. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 to the offenses notified under Part 'B' of the Schedule.
3. Allegations of involvement in paper transactions and fake documentation to cheat the State exchequer.
4. Non-appearance in the investigation despite court orders.
5. Prima facie nature of the case and distinctiveness of proceedings under ECIR and IPC.
6. Conduct of the petitioner in relation to compliance with court orders.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an ECIR registered under the PMLA. The petitioner was implicated in a case involving a refund claimed by an export firm, which was found to have submitted forged documentation. The petitioner was also accused of benefiting from the fraudulent activities and was arrested in connection with the case.

2. The petitioner argued that Section 45 of the PMLA, 2002 is not applicable to offenses under Part 'B' of the Schedule post the 2013 amendment. The petitioner relied on previous judgments to support the claim that bail should be granted due to the nature of the offenses and the petitioner's previous arrest and release on bail.

3. The respondent contended that the petitioner was involved in fraudulent activities to cheat the State exchequer. The respondent highlighted the modus operandi involving fake companies and forged documents to claim VAT refunds. The petitioner was accused of receiving proceeds of crime and not cooperating with the investigation.

4. The petitioner's non-appearance in the investigation despite court orders was emphasized. The respondent argued that the petitioner deliberately avoided joining the investigation, hindering the identification and attachment of the remaining proceeds of the crime. The lack of cooperation by the petitioner was cited as a reason for denying equitable relief.

5. The court noted the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner and his son. It highlighted the distinction between proceedings under ECIR and IPC, emphasizing the need to consider the prima facie nature of the case while deciding on anticipatory bail.

6. The court observed that the petitioner failed to comply with court orders to join the proceedings, leading to the dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail. The conduct of the petitioner was deemed insufficient to warrant the extraordinary relief sought.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application based on the petitioner's conduct and non-compliance with court orders, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.