2022 (7) TMI 1468 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - scheduled offence or not - grant of pardon by the competent Special Court taking cognizance of the offence of money laundering on the basis of the same facts and allegations/material in the CBI case - HELD THAT - Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 22nd August 2022. Mr. Thakare waives notice on behalf of the respondent No.1-CBI. In addition to Court notice, petitioner to serve the respondent No.2 by Advocate's notice and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. The investigation is in progress and that at this stage, he is unable to make a statement whether the petitioner can be made an accused or not, it is deemed appropriate to pass the interim order - petitioner is directed to attend to the summons issued by the respondent No. 1-CBI - In the meantime, till the next date, no coercive steps to be taken as against the petitioner in connection with RC 1(E)/ 2018/CBI/BS FC/MUMBAI, till the next date. Stand over to 22nd August 2022.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether a person granted pardon in ED proceedings can be made an accused by CBI based on the same facts.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought various reliefs, including guidelines for protection after being accepted as an "approver" under PMLA and granted pardon by the Special Court. The petitioner, brother-in-law of an accused, was made an approver in an ED case after cooperating with investigations. The main contention was that once pardoned by ED, CBI cannot arraign him as an accused. The petitioner faced issues at the airport due to a Look Out Circular.

2. The central issue was whether the petitioner, granted pardon in ED proceedings, could be made an accused by CBI based on the same facts. The petitioner's counsel cited relevant judgments, emphasizing the protection granted post-pardon. The CBI challenged the petitioner's travel permission after deciding to make him an accused, leading to a stay order by the Court.

3. The Special Public Prosecutor argued that investigation prerogatives lie with the CBI, distinct from ED's PMLA cases. He highlighted that CBI's investigation was ongoing, without a final decision on making the petitioner an accused. The prosecutor deemed the petition premature due to the evolving investigation status.

4. The Court issued notices to respondents, setting a returnable date. An interim order directed the petitioner to attend CBI summons with prior notice and restrained coercive actions until the next hearing. The Court acknowledged the ongoing investigation's complexity and the need for further clarity before making a conclusive decision.