9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 661 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Justifiability of the issuance of NBW against the petitioners - no reasons given for such issuance - appellant entered into criminal conspiracy and committed criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery etc. and invested the proceeds of crime generated thereby in assets standing in their names - HELD THAT - No reason whatsoever was cited by the Court below to direct issuance of NBW. The reasons cited by Mr. Agarwal (opposite party) to justify issuance of NBW such as, gravity of the economic offences etc. have not been referred to by the Court below itself. To such extent therefore, the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court cited by Mr. Agarwal would have no application to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case. This Court is of the view that given the absence of the accused persons and non-taking of the steps on their behalf, the Court below ought to have issued a bailable warrant of arrest since there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused persons have been deliberately avoiding to appear before the Court. The impugned order is thus rendered unsustainable in the eye of law warranting interference - Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Justifiability of the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the petitioners. 2. Whether the Court below should have issued bailable warrants instead of NBW. Summary: Issue 1: Justifiability of the issuance of Non-Bailable Warrants (NBW) against the petitioners All four applications filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenge the order of the Court below issuing NBW against the petitioners, who are accused in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The accused were alleged to have committed criminal conspiracy, breach of trust, cheating, and forgery, and invested the proceeds of crime in assets in their names. The Court below took cognizance of the offences and issued summons for their appearance. Despite multiple adjournments and the accused appearing through counsel, they failed to appear physically, leading the Court to issue NBW on 20.04.2023. Issue 2: Whether the Court below should have issued bailable warrants instead of NBWThe petitioners argued that the Court should have issued bailable warrants instead of NBW, as they were never arrested during the investigation and had engaged counsel to represent them. The counsel's failure to inform the petitioners of the proceedings led to their ignorance of the NBW issuance. The petitioners cited case laws emphasizing that NBW should not be issued casually and mechanically, and that personal liberty is paramount. The respondent, representing the Enforcement Directorate, argued that the petitioners had sufficient liberty to appear but failed to do so, and given the gravity of the allegations, NBW was justified. Legal Precedents and Court's Analysis:The Court referred to the case of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, which emphasizes that NBW should be issued only when summons or bailable warrants are unlikely to produce the desired result. The Court noted that the impugned order did not cite any reason for issuing NBW without considering a bailable warrant. The Court also referred to the case of Vikas v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that NBW should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. Conversely, the respondent cited the case of Shyam Sunder Singhvi v. Union of India, where the High Court of Rajasthan upheld the issuance of NBW in cases of grave economic offences. However, the Court noted that the Supreme Court's dismissal of the SLP in this case did not overrule the principles laid down in Inder Mohan Goswami. Conclusion:The Court concluded that the issuance of NBW was not justified as the Court below did not provide any reason for not issuing a bailable warrant first. The impugned order was deemed unsustainable in law. The Court directed the petitioners to physically surrender before the Court below and move for bail, which should be granted on appropriate terms and conditions. The CRLMCs were accordingly allowed.
|
