2021 (4) TMI 284 - HC - Money Laundering

Remittance of huge money abroad - fake/forged bill of entries - Accusation of committing offences punishable u/s 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - HELD THAT - It is a matter of fact that the offence pertains to the year 2014 and as of now, trial has not proceeded. There is no any possibility or likelihood of completion of trial in near future or at least say 3 years. There is no disagreement on this fact situation. Secondly, though 7 to 8 years have passed, there is no any possibility of completion of investigation even in near future or say at least for 3 to 5 years. These facts are not in dispute since the prosecution agency was not in a position to state at bar as to what further period would require to complete the remaining investigation in the offences alleged against private respondent and other co-accused persons - Since the private respondent, when permitted to travel abroad during the year 2018 to 2020, observed all the conditions in its letter and spirit and there is no grievance ventilated at bar that he committed breach of any of the conditions or there is any material placed before the Court at the time of hearing of previous applications for permission for a short period. Not only that, no any order, whereby the private respondent was permitted to travel abroad, has been challenged by the applicant. The private respondent is granted permission to visit for limited period of 3 months at a time, to provide complete itinerary and contact details both to the Court and the investigating officer, to file undertaking to remain present at the time of conducting trial and not to leave India when crucial witnesses are going to be examined by the Court and further not to stay continuously for more than three months in foreign country at a time and more particularly to move out of India for the purpose of business activities only, are sufficient safeguards provided in the impugned order. On combined reading of the conditions imposed upon the private respondent, it transpires that the Designated Court took all care and caution to secure the presence of the private respondent at the time of trial, to trace the accused as and when he goes out of India as he is required to provide complete itinerary and contact details in advance and not to stay continuously for more than three months in foreign countries. Thus, there is complete check on the movement of the private respondent to the knowledge of the concerned investigating agency and the Court and therefore, to impose condition to seek leave of the Court is futile exercise on the part of the Court. There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - revision application dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the order dated 17.09.2020 by the Special Court, PMLA, Ahmedabad.
2. Transfer and release of the private respondent's passport.
3. Conditions imposed on the private respondent for traveling abroad.
4. Allegations against the private respondent under PMLA and IPC.
5. Ongoing investigation and trial under PMLA.
6. Fundamental right to travel versus ensuring unhampered trial and investigation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Order Dated 17.09.2020:
The applicant sought to quash the order dated 17.09.2020 passed by the Special Court, PMLA, Ahmedabad, which permitted the private respondent to retain his passport for five years to facilitate business travel. The applicant argued that this order was illegal and contrary to law, as it could potentially hamper the ongoing investigation and trial under PMLA.

2. Transfer and Release of the Passport:
Initially, the private respondent's passport was deposited with the trial court due to conditions imposed in connection with offences under IPC sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477A, and 120B. After being discharged from these offences, the private respondent applied for the release of his passport. The Sessions Judge transferred the custody of the passport to the PMLA case, and subsequently, the passport was released to the private respondent as per the impugned order.

3. Conditions Imposed for Traveling Abroad:
The Designated Court imposed several conditions while relaxing the restriction on the private respondent's travel. These included executing an additional bail bond, providing travel itinerary and contact details, ensuring presence during trial, not leaving India during crucial witness examination, and not staying abroad for more than three months continuously. These conditions aimed to balance the private respondent's right to travel with the need to ensure his presence for trial and investigation.

4. Allegations under PMLA and IPC:
The private respondent faced accusations of serious offences under PMLA and IPC for allegedly remitting money abroad using forged bill entries. The investigation under PMLA was initiated due to the nature of the offences being scheduled offences under the Act. The applicant emphasized the gravity of these charges and the ongoing investigation, arguing that allowing the private respondent to travel could lead to tampering with evidence or fleeing the country.

5. Ongoing Investigation and Trial:
The trial and investigation related to the offences dated back to 2014 and were still ongoing. The court noted that there was no immediate likelihood of completion of the trial or investigation, which could potentially take several more years. Despite this, the private respondent had complied with all conditions during previous travels and had not breached any terms imposed by the court.

6. Fundamental Right to Travel:
The private respondent's advocate argued that the right to travel is a fundamental right, essential for the respondent's business activities. The court had to strike a balance between this right and the need to ensure an unhampered trial and investigation. The court found that the conditions imposed by the Designated Court provided sufficient safeguards to protect the interests of the investigating agency while allowing the private respondent to conduct his business.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the Designated Court had taken adequate care to ensure the smooth trial and investigation by imposing rigorous conditions on the private respondent's travel. The apprehensions of the applicant regarding potential tampering with evidence or fleeing the country were deemed misplaced, given the private respondent's compliance with previous travel conditions. The court found no impropriety or illegality in the impugned order and thus declined the Criminal Revision Application, discharging the notice.

← Previous Next →