9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 640 - HC - Money LaunderingMaintainability of Revision application - Grant of Police custody - Money Laundering - scheduled offences - Seeking extension of the custody of the accused-respondent No.2 with the applicant for a period of 10 days - investigation under section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - In view of the judgment in case Ambarish Rangeshahi Patnigere Vs. State of Maharashtra 2010 (7) TMI 1191 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT , the Single Judge of this Court has considered the aspect in respect of refusal by the Magistrate to consider the request for Police custody and has observed that the observations of the Apex Court in the case State represented by Inspector of Police and others Vs. of N.M.T Joy Immaculate, 2004 (5) TMI 573 - SUPREME COURT would not apply to the facts of that case since the question which fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the said case was whether the order passed by the Magistrate granting Police custody for one day was an interlocutory order or not. Refusal to grant Police custody, therefore, became a final order since thereafter the State cannot file further application for grant of Police custody and in respect of the said subject matter the order has become final - Thus, in view of the ratio laid down by this Court, the revision application is maintainable. Nexus of respondent No.2 as well as his knowledge and indulgence either directly or indirectly in the offence of money laundering as well as possessing or holding proceeds of crime - HELD THAT - It appears that the learned Judge has taken a very casual and perfunctory approach by ignoring that it is not a simple crime but is so enormous and complex which requires a thorough probe and investigation by the Investigating Agency in view of the provisions of P.M.L Act. Merely because, the Investigating Officer could not answer the queries of the learned Judge does not ipso facto mean that the material collected and the statements recorded by the Investigating Agency are figments as there is no reason for the Enforcement Directorate to falsely implicate respondent No.2 when there is clinching material prima facie exhibiting nexus of respondent No.2 with the co-conspirators. Unless there is free, fair and full investigation of the crime of such a large and colossal magnitude, which could fructify only by a custodial investigation, the learned Judge ought to have applied his mind while considering prayer of extending custodial interrogation - It appears that the learned Judge pre-supposed that the complainant being an ex employee of the Tops Group has every reason to implicate the former employer. Such observations are uncalled for, unnecessary and without any basis. Thus, requirements of section 3 of P.M.L Act are precisely attracted from the aforesaid material placed on record. Prima facie, it appears that the proceeds of crime exchanged hands from M.M.R.D.A, Tops Group and respondent No.2. Arrest of respondent No.2 - HELD THAT - There is an endorsement in the handwriting of respondent No.2 which has been signed by him in acknowledgment of having been informed about the grounds of arrest on the same day. Not only that there is further endorsement by respondent No.2 that he had informed about his arrest to his lawyer Mr. Shoeb Memon whose mobile number has also been mentioned therein. Therefore, unless something contrary is produced on record, it has to be presumed and held that respondent No.2 was informed about the grounds of arrest and acknowledgment thereof. He has signed beneath the arrest order. If no such grounds were communicated to him, then it is clear that he would have made an endorsement to the effect that he has not received the grounds of arrest. Respondent No.2 is not an illiterate person in the sense that he is not a naive person. The learned Additional Sessions Judge holding charge of the Holiday Court has not exercised his jurisdiction with due application of mind and approached to the matter in a very casual manner. I am mindful of the fact that liberty of an individual is of paramount importance. However, at the same time, balance needs to be struck between individual s right as well as there should be no prejudice to the free, fair and full investigation. Material placed on record, prima facie indicates complicity and nexus of respondent No.2 in the alleged crime. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the revision application against an interlocutory order. 2. Nexus and involvement of the respondent in the offence of money laundering. 3. Compliance with Section 19 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) regarding the arrest of the respondent. 4. Necessity of custodial interrogation for further investigation. Issue-wise Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Revision Application: The primary objection raised by the respondent's counsel was the maintainability of the revision application, arguing that it was an interlocutory order and thus not revisable under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. The applicant's counsel countered this by citing judgments, including "Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra" and "Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana," which clarified that certain orders, although interlocutory, can be considered final for specific purposes and thus revisable. The court concluded that the order refusing police custody becomes final since the State cannot reapply for police custody, making the revision application maintainable. 2. Nexus and Involvement in Money Laundering: The court examined the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA from various individuals, including the complainant, Amar Panghal, Niraj Bijalani, and the respondent. These statements revealed that significant funds were diverted from Tops Group to personal accounts and used for personal expenses. The respondent was implicated in a profit-sharing arrangement involving substantial cash payments, which were part of the proceeds of crime. The court found prima facie evidence of the respondent's involvement in money laundering, necessitating further investigation. 3. Compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA: The respondent's counsel argued that the arrest was illegal due to non-compliance with Section 19 of the PMLA, which requires the reasons for the arrest to be recorded in writing. The court examined the arrest order and found endorsements indicating that the respondent was informed of the grounds of arrest and had acknowledged this. The court held that oral communication of the grounds of arrest constitutes substantial compliance with Section 19, dismissing the respondent's grievance. 4. Necessity of Custodial Interrogation: The applicant's counsel argued that the complexity and enormity of the case required custodial interrogation to unearth the details of the crime, including the involvement of public servants and the end use of the proceeds of crime. The court agreed that the nature of the economic offence, involving deep-rooted conspiracies and significant public funds, necessitated a different approach. The court criticized the Holiday Judge for a casual approach and emphasized the need for a thorough investigation, which could be achieved only through custodial interrogation. Conclusion: The court quashed the impugned order of the Holiday Court and directed the Special Judge to reconsider the applicant's request for the respondent's detention in custody. The court emphasized the importance of balancing individual liberty with the necessity of a thorough and fair investigation in cases of economic offences. The Special Judge was instructed to pass an appropriate order on the same day, ensuring the investigation's integrity and comprehensiveness.
|
