9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 357 - HC - Money LaunderingPetition for grant of Bail - Money Laundering - proceeds of crime - specific case of the respondent is that the petitioner in his official capacity as a Transport Minister of State of Tamil Nadu conspired with his brother Ashok Kumar Assistants - Shanmugam and Karthikeyan and officials/personal assistants of Transport Department and orchestrated a strategy to exchange cash for job selections under various categories in the Transport Department - HELD THAT - The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire files should have been analysed and there is no question of selecting certain files and analysing the same. This Court is not able to agree with this submission. It is always left open to the prosecution agency to select the relevant files and seek for the analysis report. Hence the investigation agency in the predicate offence thought it fit to select the relevant files numbering 284 and the same was analysed and a report was given by TNFSL. In any case this Court cannot come to a conclusion that the differences pointed out is as a result of manipulation. That would tantamount to an extreme presumption which is not warranted at this stage. It must be borne in mind that these materials and reports were collected by the investigation agency who investigated the predicate offences and the respondent is merely relying upon the same in order to prosecute the petitioner for offence under Section 3 of PMLA. It is not necessary for the respondent to rely upon all the materials collected in the predicate offence and it is always left open to the respondent to select the relevant materials to make out a case under Section 3 of PMLA. The seized digital evidence is in the custody of the Special Court dealing with MP/MLA cases and what the respondent has done is that they have obtained a copy of the digital evidence in printout form which has been certified by the Court. It must be borne in mind that this Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry or a mini trial to test the probative value of the electronic record relied upon by the respondent. What is required is to see as to whether there is prima facie genuineness in the materials that are sought to be relied upon by the respondent. If on going through the materials this Court is convinced that there is no doubt on the genuineness of the materials relied upon by the respondent there is no question of doubting the probative value of those documents at the stage of dealing with the bail petition. The submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as if 284 files had increased to 472 files and therefore there is manipulation of pen drive is totally unsustainable. The file path has been explained at paragraph no.14.5.8 of the complaint and when this is read along with relied upon documents 28 to 33 filed along with the complaint it becomes clear that the excel sheet is very much a part of CF-27/21. To add strength to the same it is also seen that the relevant document has been certified by the Special Court and this document is a print out of what is contained in the file. These documents prima facie establishes that the entire recruitment process in the Transport Corporation was manipulated by fixing specific rates for various posts and based on the payment of money the marks were manipulated and the recruitment had taken place. It is seen that there was a large scale manipulation resorted to which has been explained at paragraph no.11 of the complaint and which shows that payments have been made by many job aspirants for jobs either directly or through the associates to B.Shanmugam and M.Karthikeyan who were the unofficial personal assistants of the petitioner during the relevant point of time - If there is a prima facie material to show that the amount has been received by misusing the position of the petitioner who was the then Transport Minister that by itself will be construed as proceeds of crime and it is not necessary for the respondent to further establish that such proceeds of crime was projected as untainted money subsequently. The next submission that was made was that most of the statements that were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are that of the co-accused or the suspects. There are only six independent witnesses available and none of them implicate the petitioner - The above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner does not hold water. As on date the petitioner alone has been made as an accused and the complaint has been filed only as against the petitioner. None of the other persons from whom statements have been recorded under Section 50 of PMLA are shown as accused or suspects. The petitioner resigned from the post of Minister without a portfolio just one day prior to the hearing of this bail petition. The fact that the petitioner continued to hold the position as a Minister for nearly eight months and that to without a portfolio when he was inside the jail shows the tremendous influence of the petitioner and the importance that is given to him by the State Government. Even if the petitioner had resigned from his position as a Minister he continues as a MLA belonging to the same party which is running the Government in the State of Tamil Nadu and therefore without any hesitation this Court holds that the petitioner continues to wield a lot of influence on the Government. When such is the position the witnesses who are mostly the officials belonging to the MTC and the prospective job seekers who had paid the money will be influenced/tampered with - This Court is also taking into consideration the larger interest of the Public/State since the petitioner was involved in a cash for job scam by misusing his position as a Transport Minister and thereby genuine aspirants for the job were deprived of level playing field and in their place persons who paid money were accommodated. In this process the respondent has identified the proceeds of crime at Rs. 67.74 crores. If the petitioner is let out on bail in a case of this nature it will send a wrong signal and it will be against larger public interest. Therefore this Court holds that even under Section 439 Cr.PC the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for enlargement on bail. This Court does not find any merits in this bail petition and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Bail application under Section 439 Cr.PC and twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. 2. Allegations and evidence against the petitioner. 3. Arguments by petitioner's counsel. 4. Arguments by respondent's counsel. 5. Court's analysis and decision. Summary: 1. Bail Application and Twin Conditions under PMLA: The petitioner, a former Transport Minister, sought bail after being arrested for offences under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and remanded to judicial custody. The court had to determine if the petitioner satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA and the requirements under Section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Allegations and Evidence: Between 2011 and 2016, the petitioner allegedly conspired with his assistants and brother to collect money in exchange for job opportunities in the Transport Department. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered a case based on these allegations and subsequent investigations. The evidence included electronic records (CF-29, CF-27, CF-116), statements under Section 50 of PMLA, and email communications. 3. Arguments by Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner's counsel argued that there were changes in circumstances since the previous bail applications, including the petitioner's resignation as Minister. They contended that the investigation was complete, and the petitioner was willing to comply with bail conditions. They challenged the probative value of the electronic evidence, citing discrepancies and tampering allegations. They also argued that the statements recorded under Section 50 of PMLA were not strong enough to deny bail. 4. Arguments by Respondent's Counsel: The respondent's counsel maintained that the petitioner still wielded influence despite resigning and could tamper with evidence or influence witnesses. They argued that the petitioner had not satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. They defended the integrity of the electronic evidence and the statements recorded, asserting that the materials were genuine and sufficient to deny bail. 5. Court's Analysis and Decision: The court found that the petitioner had not satisfied the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA. The materials, including CF-29/20 and CF-27/21, were deemed prima facie genuine. The court noted that the petitioner's influence persisted, posing a risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses. Considering the larger public interest and the nature of the allegations, the court dismissed the bail petition. The court directed the Special Court to dispose of the pending case within three months, conducting the trial on a day-to-day basis.
|
