2020 (1) TMI 1680 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - Burden to proof - conspiracy with other accused prepared forged documents and records and thereby misused and abused his official position and not only caused financial loss to the Government - HELD THAT - It is true that at present there may or may not be direct or indirect attempts to indulge the applicant in any process of activity connected with the proceeds of crime there is no attempt on the part of the applicant to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him. There is no denying the fact that allegations have been made that the said money was the proceeds of crime and by depositing or investing the same in his wife s account and in the business of his wife and brother the applicant has attempted to project the same as untainted money. The said allegations may be the subject matter of final outcome of the trial but having been made the burden of proof that the said money is not the proceeds of crime and therefore shifted to the applicant under Section 24 of the PML Act 2002. The applicant has filed Criminal Revision No. 1129/2018 coaccused Sh. Abrar Baig and Vinod Malewar have filed CRR Nos. 898/2018 and 816/2018 respectively which are still pending consideration. Earlier in Scheduled Offence the present applicant was granted bail by this Court on 23.08.2019 and in the present bail application the applicant is facing charge under the PML Act. Though according to the medical documents the applicant is suffering from serious physical ailment but no such document is there on record which could establish that he is suffering from any life threatening disease. He was granted temporary bail for 20 days by this Court for quality treatment of his disease. Taking into consideration the entire circumstances of the case judicial pronouncement of Supreme Court in Rohit (supra) gravity of offence and further considering the fact that the applicant is a Govt. Servant (In-charge Executive Engineer Water Resources Department) and the manner in which the public money is alleged to have been laundered by the applicant bail cannot be granted. The application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to custody since 11.10.2018 for offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The case originated from an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and subsequent charges under the PML Act due to alleged financial misconduct during the applicant's tenure as an In-charge Executive Engineer. The applicant argued false implication and delay in trial, citing health issues and no need for further interrogation. Reference was made to Supreme Court decisions emphasizing bail in case of trial delay.

2. The respondent opposed bail, highlighting the applicant's alleged laundering of significant sums by manipulating documents and investments in family businesses. The prosecution argued that the burden of proving the money as untainted property shifted to the applicant under Section 24 of the PML Act. Statements of co-accused indicated the applicant's involvement in financial irregularities, emphasizing the seriousness of economic offences and the need for stringent action. The prosecution also argued against bail based on the gravity of the offence and the threat it poses to the financial health of the country.

3. The Court considered the burden of proof on the applicant regarding the source of the handled money, as per Sections 3 and 24 of the PML Act. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Court acknowledged the seriousness of economic offences and the burden on the accused to prove the legitimacy of funds. The Court noted the pending criminal revisions by the applicant and co-accused, the lack of conclusive medical evidence, and the gravity of the alleged offence in denying bail to the applicant, a government servant implicated in money laundering.

4. Ultimately, the Court rejected the bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, considering the severity of the allegations, the applicant's role as a government official, and the significant financial implications of the alleged money laundering activities. The decision was based on the gravity of the offence, the pending criminal revisions, and the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the applicant's health condition.