9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1138 - HC - Money LaunderingPrevention of Money Laundering - denial of natural justice - denial of supply petitioner s statement recorded under Section 50(2) - HELD THAT - Investigation in this sensitive case is in progress and is at a crucial stage. Rules of Natural Justice cannot be invoked at this stage as an accused has no say in the manner and method of investigation. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. are not supplied during the course of investigation and are supplied alongwith the charge-sheet filed. In the instant case also, after completion of investigation in this case, copy of petitioner s statement under Section 50 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 would be supplied. Petitioner is accused of an offence under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 which poses serious threat not only to the financial system of the country but also its integrity and sovereignty. Keeping in view the object of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 refusal to supply petitioner s statement recorded under Section 50 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to him at this initial stage is justified. This Court is of the considered view that it would not be in the interest of justice to direct supply of petitioner s statement under Section 50 of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 to him when the investigation of this case is at a crucial stage.
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 50(2) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 regarding the supply of petitioner's statement. 2. Whether the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act are judicial proceedings. 3. Comparison of presumption of truth attached to statements under Section 50 with those under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 4. Application of Rules of Natural Justice during the investigation stage. 5. Justification for refusal to supply petitioner's statement under Section 50 at the initial stage. 6. Consideration of the seriousness of the offense under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. Analysis: 1. The petitioner argued that the proceedings under Section 50(2) of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are of a civil nature and judicial, thus there should be no hindrance in supplying the petitioner's statement consisting of around 100 pages. The petitioner relied on the interpretation of the provision to support their claim. 2. The petitioner emphasized that statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act should be considered as judicial proceedings, and therefore, there should be no restriction on providing a copy of these statements. They pointed out the presumption of truth attached to such statements, distinguishing them from statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 3. In contrast, the Special Public Prosecutor supported the impugned order, referencing a Supreme Court decision to oppose the petitioner's plea. The prosecutor argued against the supply of the petitioner's statement under Section 50, aligning with the principles established in the cited case law. 4. The court considered the arguments presented and examined the impugned order along with the relevant legal precedents. It was noted that the investigation was at a crucial stage, and the rules of natural justice could not be invoked as the accused had no role in determining the investigation process. 5. Given the seriousness of the offense under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the court justified the decision to withhold the supply of the petitioner's statement at the initial stage. The court highlighted that after the completion of the investigation, the statement would be provided to the petitioner as per the procedural requirements. 6. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition and application, refraining from commenting on the merits of the case. The decision was based on the understanding that directing the supply of the petitioner's statement during the crucial investigative phase would not serve the interest of justice considering the nature of the offense and the stage of the investigation.
|
