2010 (3) TMI 1274 - HC - Money Laundering

Summary

Issues involved: Application u/s 482 for quashing order rejecting bail application u/s 167(2) of Cr.P.C.

Summary:
1. The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting their bail application under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A complaint was lodged against the petitioner for various offenses, including under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner was remanded to judicial custody, and their bail application was rejected by the Special Court.

2. The petitioner argued that the Investigating Officer failed to submit a police report within 60 days as required by Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C., entitling them to bail u/s 167(2). They contended that a complaint filed by the Investigating Officer did not fulfill the requirement of a police report. The State Vigilance and Enforcement Directorate countered that a complaint after investigation suffices under the law.

3. The Counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner should be released on bail as no police report had been submitted by the Investigating Officer. The State Counsel argued that the complaint filed post-investigation meets legal standards.

4. The Court examined the relevant provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, emphasizing the special nature of the statute and the procedures outlined within. It highlighted the restrictions on bail under Section 45 and the requirement for a complaint to take cognizance under Section 44(1b).

5. The Court noted that the Act's provisions override inconsistent laws and emphasized that investigation under the Act is distinct from a police report. It concluded that the Act's provisions take precedence over the Cr.P.C., and the petitioner's complaint was filed within the stipulated time, denying bail under Section 167(2).

6. The Court dismissed the application, finding no merit in challenging the order rejecting bail, as the complaint was filed within the prescribed period post-investigation.