2021 (6) TMI 403 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - issuance of non-bailable warrant - HELD THAT - The learned Designated Judge was pleased to register a complaint under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act and was pleased to issue summon against respondent no. 1-M/s. Sanket Media Private Limited (represented by the Directors-Shri PVS Sharma) and accused no. 2-Shri PVS Sarma who is in judicial custody and further, ordered to issue non-bailable warrant against accused nos. 3 and 4. It appears that before passing the order of issuance of non-bailable warrant against accused nos. 3 and 4, the Court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the Court, in the second instance, should issue bailable-warrant. In the third instance, when the Court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the Court proceedings intentionally, the process of issuance of the non-bailable warrant should be resorted to. In the order passed by the learned Designated Judge dated 21.01.2021 below Exh. 1 in PMLA Case No. 1 of 2021 in ECIR Number ECIR/01/STSZO/2020, non-bailable warrant against accused nos. 3 and 4 would be converted into bailable warrant against accused nos. 3 and 4. Rest of the order passed by the Court-below would remain as it is - Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application to quash non-bailable warrant
2. Conversion of non-bailable warrant to bailable warrant

Analysis:

1. Application to quash non-bailable warrant:
The applicant sought relief to quash the non-bailable warrant issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The complaint was filed by respondent no. 1 under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA Act, leading to the issuance of summon against M/s. Sanket Media Private Limited and accused individuals. The Court referred to a judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the circumstances under which non-bailable warrants should be issued. The Apex Court emphasized that warrants, whether bailable or non-bailable, should be issued after careful scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind. It highlighted that personal liberty is paramount, and courts should refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants unless absolutely necessary. In this case, the Court noted that before issuing a non-bailable warrant, the Court should first direct serving of summons, followed by a bailable warrant if necessary. Only if the accused intentionally avoids court proceedings should a non-bailable warrant be considered.

2. Conversion of non-bailable warrant to bailable warrant:
Based on the legal principles discussed and the joint request of the advocates, the Court decided to convert the non-bailable warrant issued against accused nos. 3 and 4 into a bailable warrant. The Court recognized the importance of maintaining a balance between individual liberty and societal interests while considering the issuance of warrants. By converting the non-bailable warrant to a bailable one, the Court aimed to uphold personal liberty while ensuring the accused's appearance in court proceedings. The rest of the order passed by the Designated Judge remained unchanged, with the specific modification regarding the conversion of the warrant.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the present application by converting the non-bailable warrant into a bailable one for accused nos. 3 and 4, in line with the legal principles emphasizing the judicious exercise of discretion in issuing warrants and safeguarding personal liberty.