2022 (5) TMI 1167 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - renewal of passport - Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 - HELD THAT - There are no doubt that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the order under challenge. It is true that a complaint has already been laid against the petitioner and others. It is pending as S.C. No. 533/2018 before the Special Court. Meanwhile Enforcement Directorate has undertaken a further investigation on the basis of the subsequent revelations that large sum of money was laundered by the petitioner. The estimation of the first respondent is that he is guilty of laundering Rs. 910 crores including sum of Rs. 258.52 crores for which three provisional attachment orders were issued. Now the further investigation by the Enforcement Directorate is in progress. As part of the further investigation summons dated 23.02.2021 03.03.2021 24.03.2021 15.06.2021 and 29.07.2021 were issued. The petitioner admits the receipt of all such notices. But according to him he has promptly responded the same; there is no wilful default on his part in absenting from appearing before the Investigating Officer. The copy of summonses produced by the petitioner indicate that summonses issued under Section 50 of the Act asked him to appear before the Deputy Director in person on different days noted in the summons. It is a fact that he did not turn up and had sent only his representative. When the Deputy Director has insisted his personal presence as part of investigation there is no meaning in saying that he had sent his authorised representative. When personal appearance is insisted petitioner cannot be heard to say that the Enforcement Directorate should rest content with the documents and statements of the employee deployed by him - Such a conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated. In this connection this Court can see a calculated attempt on the part of the petitioner to defeat the summons and prolong the process of investigation. His adamant stand that he will not appear before the Investigating Officer is not understandable. The presumption under Section 23 of the Act works against the petitioner. Further the petitioner has approached this Court seeking exercise of its extra jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a person is expected to come with clean hands. The petitioner who is adamant and insist that he will not appear before the Investigating Officer has adopted a short cut method to get the passport renewed without co-operating with the investigation. The claim that he has co-operated with investigation has no basis at all. The learned Central Government Counsel has invited special attention to Explanation No. (ii) to Section 44(d) of the Act also.

Summary

Issues:
Renewal of passport for accused facing charges under Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioner, the first accused in a case under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, sought permission to renew his passport for five years. The Special Court dismissed the application, allowing the petitioner to file a fresh petition after appearing before the Directorate of Enforcement. The petitioner argued that he complied with previous orders, cooperated with authorities, and needed the passport for business purposes. However, the Central Government Counsel opposed, stating the petitioner evaded personal appearance for interrogation crucial to the ongoing investigation. The Court noted the serious allegations and the need for personal interrogation. The petitioner's failure to appear in person despite summons raised doubts about his cooperation with the investigation.

The Court considered the petitioner's claim of medical complications and age-related issues preventing personal appearance. However, it emphasized the importance of the petitioner's personal explanation regarding the alleged money laundering. The Court criticized the petitioner's insistence on sending a representative instead of appearing personally, suggesting a deliberate attempt to delay the investigation. The Court highlighted the petitioner's large business interests abroad and the need for the investigating agency to verify any proceeds of crime parked overseas. The Court concluded that the petitioner's conduct hindered the investigation and did not justify passport renewal without full cooperation.

The Court rejected the petitioner's reliance on previous judgments, emphasizing the ongoing further investigation and the need for the petitioner to cooperate fully. It noted that the presumption under the Act worked against the petitioner due to the ongoing investigation. The Court held that the petitioner's adamant refusal to appear before the Investigating Officer undermined his claim of cooperation. The Court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner could reapply after cooperating with the investigation. The Court highlighted the importance of coming with clean hands when seeking relief under the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing the necessity of full cooperation in such cases.