2018 (4) TMI 1891 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - rejection of conversion of issuance of nonbailable warrant into bailable warrant - Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(E) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - HELD THAT - The extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court available under Art.226/227 of the Constitution of India can be availed only in case no efficacious and effective alternate remedy is available to the petitioner. Even if an effort is made by the petitioners to do so the courts should exercise this power with great circumspect and should be loath to interfere. In the existing facts and circumstances of the case in hand the efficacious and effective remedy was available to the petitioners to move the High Court under Sec.482/483 Cr.P.C for recalling the order impugned dated 15.3.2018 whereby application filed under Sec.70 (2) Cr.P.C was rejected. Whenever a case is demonstrated that the exercise of powers under Sec.482/483 is required to curb the abuse of the process of the court and to advance the cause of justice the High Court would come forward to the rescue the petitioner. This remedy has not been availed by the petitioner in the matter in hand. Instead the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioners which is not warranted in the existing facts circumstances of the case. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners may still avail this remedy if so advised this court thinks it proper to restrain it from embarking upon the discussion on merits of the case - the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondent/s regarding maintainability of these petitions is sustained - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Rejection of application to convert non-bailable warrant into bailable warrant under Section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Contention of personal liberty and freedom as a constitutional right.
3. Maintainability of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
4. Exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction when efficacious alternative remedy is available.

Analysis:

1. The judgment pertains to two criminal writ petitions filed by accused petitioners seeking modification of an order passed by the Special Judge, Session Court, Jaipur. The petitioners had applied to convert non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C, which was rejected. The petitioners argued that due consideration was not given to their social status and career implications, emphasizing personal liberty and freedom as a constitutional right.

2. The petitioners relied on precedents such as Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan and Inder Mohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttarnanchal, highlighting that non-bailable warrants should not be issued in all circumstances. They argued for the modification of the impugned order based on these principles and the potential harm to their reputation and careers.

3. The Respondent, represented by the Addl. Solicitor General, contested the maintainability of the writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was argued that the petitioners should have pursued remedies under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C instead of invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court directly.

4. The court analyzed various judgments, including Raghu Vansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs. State of Maharashtra and State of H.P. Vs. Pirthi Chand, to determine the scope of the High Court's inherent powers under Article 226. It emphasized that the court should exercise discretion and refrain from interference when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, as in the present case where the petitioners could have approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

5. Ultimately, the court upheld the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, dismissing them solely on this ground. It refrained from delving into the merits of the case, emphasizing the importance of availing alternative remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the court's considerations regarding the rejection of the application to convert non-bailable warrants, the constitutional rights of the petitioners, the procedural aspects of maintainability under Article 226, and the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before seeking extraordinary relief from the High Court.