9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 568 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - Declination to allow exemption from personal attendance of the Petitioner by rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner under Section 205 Cr. P.C. - HELD THAT - This Court has no hesitation in coming to a conclusion that although an application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. is maintainable in a case involving offences under the PMLA Act, 2002 and the bar under Section 45 would not be attracted to such an application, however, while exercising the discretion conferred upon the Court by Section 205 Cr. P.C., the Trial Court has to take a decision with lot of circumspection and caution. Particularly, while considering such application, the learned Trial Court is to satisfy itself with regard to availability of sufficient and cogent reasons and inability of the Petitioner to appear before the Trial Court. The learned Trial Court, in such eventuality, is duty bound to consider such application on its own merit and in accordance with law. From the reading of the order passed by the Hon ble Apex Court in CHINTAN JOSHI VERSUS NIRANJANA BEHERA 2023 (8) TMI 1458 - SC ORDER , it is clear that the Bar under Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 shall not stand in the way of the Trial Court while considering an application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. filed by the accused petitioner. Reverting back to the facts of the present case and on a plain reading of the complaint, it appears that the alleged amount involved in the present crime is Rs. 35 lakhs. Therefore, the same is admittedly less than Rs. 1 crore. In the present case, the accused-Petitioner filed an application under Section 205 Cr. P.C. to dispense with his personal attendance before the Court. It has been stated that the accused-Petitioner is now posted at Berhampur Municipal Corporation in Ganjam district under deputation in Foreign Service terms and conditions for which he is unable to appear before the Trial Court at Bhubaneswar in Khurda district on each date of posting. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside - matter is remanded back to the Court of Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar to consider the application afresh by taking into consideration the grounds raised by the Petitioner in his application. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of the impugned order dated 16.08.2022. 2. Applicability of Section 205 Cr. P.C. in PMLA cases. 3. Consideration of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in exemption applications. Summary: 1. Quashing of the Impugned Order: The petitioner sought to quash the impugned order dated 16.08.2022, issued by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under PMLA Act, Khurda at Bhubaneswar, which rejected the application filed by the petitioner u/s 205 Cr. P.C. to exempt him from personal attendance in PMLA Case No. 32 of 2017. 2. Applicability of Section 205 Cr. P.C. in PMLA Cases: The petitioner argued that criminal trials must follow the procedure prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there is no prohibition in the PMLA Act against the applicability of Section 205 Cr. P.C. The petitioner contended that the trial court should have accepted his application u/s 205 Cr. P.C. due to the prolonged duration of the case. 3. Consideration of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in Exemption Applications: The trial court rejected the application u/s 205 Cr. P.C. by referring to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, emphasizing the gravity of the offences and the need to secure the attendance of accused persons. The petitioner challenged this reliance on Section 45, arguing it was misconceived for an application u/s 205 Cr. P.C. Reference to Precedent: The petitioner cited a similar case, Chintan Joshi vs. Niranjan Behera, where the application u/s 205 Cr. P.C. was rejected by the trial court based on Section 45 of the PMLA Act. The High Court upheld the rejection, emphasizing that Section 205 Cr. P.C. should be applied with caution and only in cases of great hardship to the accused. Supreme Court's Stance: The Supreme Court, in the appeal of Chintan Joshi's case, clarified that blanket exemptions cannot be granted u/s 205 Cr. P.C., but applications for exemption can be considered on their merits if sufficient reasons are provided. High Court's Conclusion: The High Court concluded that while Section 205 Cr. P.C. is applicable in PMLA cases, the trial court must exercise discretion with caution, ensuring sufficient and cogent reasons are provided for exemption. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Chintan Joshi's case. Final Directions: The trial court was directed to dispose of the application u/s 205 Cr. P.C. within six weeks from the date of communication of the High Court's judgment, considering the grounds raised by the petitioner and the Supreme Court's observations. The CRLMC application was disposed of accordingly.
|
