9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 36 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - Money Laundering - creation of fake Fixed Deposit receipts, which were created on the basis of the original FD receipts - tampering the evidence - HELD THAT - About non-compliance of 41(A) notice, as per submission of the respondent, statement recorded under Section 50(a) under Act, Judicial Statement, need not be issued 41(A) notice - on perusal of the materials relied on by the respondent / Police, prima facie established that he was actually involved in the process connected with the crime, and he not only created fake FD receipts, but also intentionally assisted A1 and other accused persons to open the fake Current Account by preparing fake documents,forging the specimen signatures of the officials and Rubber Stamp of Port Trust and Port of Chennai's logo and also possession and enjoyment of the proceeds of the Crime by concealing its original documents and transferring the amounts to other accounts projecting and claiming the same as untainted. Furthermore, as per the submission made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, petitioner had not disclosed the two facts pertaining to the end-use of mis-appropriated amount, which is the proceeds of the crime, and as of now Rs.7 crores were recovered and nearly about Rs.35 crores is yet to be recovered by the investigating agency and crores of rupees of Port trust which is a public money, were mis-appropriated by the petitioner /A22 along with other accused persons. Therefore, the authority relied on by the petitioner's counsel to show that the role of the petitioner is restricted only in respect of creation of the alleged fabricated fake FD receipts, as such is unsustainable one. Considering antecedence of the petitioner that he had already involved in Bank fraud case during the year 2009 in FIR.No.RC.14/E/2009- CBI-EOW/Chennai dated 04.09.2009, which was registered by the CBI, EOW, Chennai. In that case, Rs.25 Crores belonging to M/s.Northern Coal fields Limited (M/s.NCL), were fraudulently transfered by one Krishnan Rao to the Current Account No.3014563150 of his Company and subsequently, they transfered the amounts to several Accounts. In that case, the petitioner also opened an Account in ICICI Bank, for nearly about Rs.2 crores, which were credited to his Account, and subsequently, the amount were withdrawn. Thus, petitioner has not complied with the second conditions to avail the benefit of bail i.e. he was already charged for the offences of like nature. The Special Public Prosecutor said that, in the instant case, the proceedings of the Directorate of Enforcement had clearly reflected that the respondent / Police have collected sufficient materials against the petitioner to proceed under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money laundering Act. Statement recorded by Assistant Director under Section 50 PMLA for this petitioner also enclosed in counter statement by the respondent. The active participation on the part of this accused also primafacie reveals that he, knowing well the purpose of creation of the fake documents he has involved in the present offence, as stated by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The petitioner/A22 is one of the main person and he played active role with the prime accused person, so the authorities relied on Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, N. RAVEENDRANATHA REDDY VERSUS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 (3) TMI 196 - MADRAS HIGH COURT by the petitioner, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Considering the antecedence of the petitioner / A22 as well as huge amount of public exchequer is involved, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner at this stage, that too when further investigation is yet to be done by the respondent / Police. Furthermore on considering the nature of the offences committed by the petitioner and also the previous antecedents, possibility of indulge in similar offence, and that there is a possibility of tampering with witnesses and hampering the evidence and investigation, and as there is no change of circumstances, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. This Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. False Implication and Lack of Prima Facie Case 2. Compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. 3. Involvement in Money Laundering and Creation of Fake Documents 4. Previous Criminal Record and Habitual Offending Summary: False Implication and Lack of Prima Facie Case: The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the allegations against him were not supported by any material evidence. He contended that the ingredients of Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) did not apply to his case and that he was not liable under Section 4 of the PMLA. The petitioner also highlighted that he was not served with a notice under Section 41-A Cr.P.C., which is mandatory. Compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C.: The petitioner claimed that non-compliance with Section 41-A Cr.P.C. by the investigating agency was a ground for granting bail. However, the court noted that the statements recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA did not require a Section 41-A notice. Involvement in Money Laundering and Creation of Fake Documents: The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in creating fake Fixed Deposit receipts and other forged documents to facilitate the opening of a fake Current Account in the name of Chennai Port Trust. The petitioner was accused of being actively involved in money laundering activities, including the concealment and transfer of proceeds of crime. The court found that there was a prima facie case of money laundering against the petitioner, as he knowingly assisted in creating fake documents and transferring funds. Previous Criminal Record and Habitual Offending: The prosecution highlighted the petitioner's previous involvement in a similar offence in 2009, where he was accused of fraudulently transferring funds belonging to M/s. Northern Coalfields Limited. The court considered the petitioner's antecedents and the nature of the offences committed, concluding that there was a possibility of him indulging in similar offences and tampering with evidence. Conclusion: The court dismissed the bail petition, stating that the petitioner was actively involved in money laundering activities and that further investigation was required. The court also noted the petitioner's previous criminal record and the possibility of him tampering with evidence.
|
