9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 143 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - Petitioner claimed as being whistle blower made an accused - The mens rea behind the accused / petitioner was to check and hamper the ongoing PIL which has further come in the investigation - registration of the ECIR case is condition precedent and commission of scheduled offence - grant of interim bail - HELD THAT - The Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that admittedly only the ECIR is under challenge in this petition, which is internal document of the ED and that might have been communicated to the Court and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about internal document of the ECIR in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that since the inquiry in due course ends in identifying the offender who is involved in the process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and then to prosecute him, it is possible for the department to outline the situations in which that course could be adopted in reference to specific provisions of 2002 Act or the Rules framed thereunder; and in which event, what are the options available to such person before the Authority or the Special Court, as the case may be. Such document may come handy and disseminate information to all concerned. Looking into Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, it is crystal clear that whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projecting it as untainted property shall be guilty of offence of money laundering. Admittedly, this petitioner has handed over the sum of Rs.50 Lakhs to Mr. Rajeev Kumar. Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act speaks that giver and taker of bribe, both are liable to be prosecuted, which comes under scheduled offence in light of Section 2(1)(u) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - In the case in hand, serious allegation is there against this petitioner, who tried to malign the image of judiciary and high officials of the Government and ED. Thus, that case is not helping the petitioner. Thus, the argument of Mr. Nigam, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner with regard to jurisdiction is not accepted by this Court and the same is negated. The prayer of the petitioner with regard to release on interim bail under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not made out and that prayer is rejected. Whether the accused would have any say in selecting the method of inquiry or the investigating agency? - HELD THAT - It is well settled that the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution can direct the CBI to investigate into any specific case or to conduct an inquiry against a person. It can do so only when there is sufficient material before the Court to come to a prima facie conclusion that there is a need for such an inquiry. There is no doubt that such inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because a party makes an allegation and if after considering the materials on record the Court concludes that such materials disclose a prima facie case calling for investigation by the CBI, the Court can pass necessary order. In the case in hand, this petitioner has tried to scandalize the judiciary, ED officials and Government officials particularly considering that Hare Street P.S. Case was registered with the police station, which was not within the jurisdiction of resident or office of the petitioner, which suggests that there is larger conspiracy to malign the image of judiciary, ED and other officials including the Court staff, which is a serious matter and this all has come in the investigation of the ED. Such type of allegation brought to the knowledge of the Court cannot be allowed to go unattended - Once the preliminary inquiry report is submitted, the Director, CBI shall be at liberty to choose further course of action, in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of ECIR Case No.5 of 2022 2. Legality of the petitioner's arrest and detention 3. Constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Quashing of ECIR Case No.5 of 2022: The petitioner sought to quash ECIR Case No.5 of 2022 registered by the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) under Section 120B, 384 of IPC, and Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner argued that he was not an accused in the predicate offense (Hare Street P.S. Case No.222 of 2022) and thus, the registration of the ECIR case against him was without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others, asserting that the registration of an ECIR case is contingent upon the commission of a scheduled offense, which was not applicable to him. The court, however, found that the ECIR is an internal document of the ED and not subject to quashing. The Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary (paragraph 461) had held that the ECIR is an internal document for departmental use and not accessible to the public. Thus, the court rejected the prayer to quash the ECIR case. 2. Legality of the Petitioner's Arrest and Detention: The petitioner contended that his arrest on 07.10.2022 and continued detention by the ED were wrongful, without jurisdiction, and illegal. The petitioner argued that the entire case was based on a PIL, which was set aside by the Supreme Court, and thus, the ED had no jurisdiction to investigate or arrest him. The court noted that the petitioner was produced before the learned court and remanded to judicial custody, and the remand order was not under challenge. The court further referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Saurabh Kumar through his father v. Jailor, Koneila Jail, which emphasized that habeas corpus is not applicable when the detention is pursuant to a judicial order. The court concluded that the petitioner's detention was not illegal and rejected the prayer for interim bail under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. Constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT): The petitioner requested the constitution of a SIT headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court or High Court to investigate the registration of the ECIR case, alleging attempts to divert the investigation and save the accused in FIR No.222 of 2022. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, including attempts to malign the judiciary and high officials. The court decided that the public interest would be best served by directing the Director of CBI to initiate a preliminary inquiry into the conduct of the petitioner. The court ordered the CBI to conduct the inquiry within 15 days and submit a report, after which the Director, CBI, could decide on further action. Conclusion: The court rejected the prayers to quash the ECIR case and for interim bail, but allowed the prayer for a preliminary inquiry by the CBI into the petitioner's conduct. The court emphasized the need for a fair and impartial investigation given the serious allegations involved. The petition was disposed of with directions for the CBI to conduct the inquiry and submit a report.
|
