9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (3) TMI 1252 - HC - Money LaunderingMoney Laundering - proceeds of crime - Maintainability of petition - petition has been filed through the power of attorney holder and the affidavit sworn by the power of attorney of the petitioner which is not maintainable - Money Laundering - Issuance of non-bailable warrant (open-ended) against the petitioner - Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - issuance of summons under Section 50 of the PMLA 2002. Maintainability of petition - petition has been filed through the power of attorney holder and the affidavit sworn by the power of attorney of the petitioner which is not maintainable - HELD THAT - In the present case the petitioner is at Dubai who executed a power of attorney in favour of Mr. Khemraj Sinha resident of Adivasi Colony Kushalpur Raipur (C.G.) who sworn an affidavit on behalf of the petitioner in the present petition. The respondent/ED has relied upon the judgment of Amrinder Singh @ Raja (supra) and in Para 7 and 8 it would rely upon the judgment of Amit Ahuja 2010 (5) TMI 962 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT and T.C. Mathai 1999 (3) TMI 635 - SUPREME COURT . There is nothing on record to show that the power of attorney of the petitioner is disabled by filing affidavit in support of the petition or the petition filed through power of attorney is not maintainable. The preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition through power of attorney holder is not sustainable and hereby rejected. Applicability and procedural compliance of summons issued under Section 50 of PMLA 2002 to a person residing outside India - HELD THAT - When the ED found sufficient evidence against the petitioner that he actively involved in the illegal operation of Mahadev Operation Book he issued the summons under Section 50 of the PMLA-2002 to the address of the petitioner available with the ED and asked to appear on 02.09.2023 and 04.09.2023. Since the petitioner did not join the investigation the ED apply under Section 70 of CRPC for issuance of non-bailable warrant (open-ended) against the petitioner on 04.09.2023. The petitioner had obtained citizenship of a small island nation Vanuatu which does not have any extradition treaty or arrangement with India clearly evident that the petitioner did not intend to join the investigation and therefore the application for issuance of non-bailable warrant was filed before the learned Special Court. The learned Special Court has ample power to issue non-bailable warrant against the accused when he failed to cooperate and deliberately avoided the process of law. It is apparent from the reading of Section 50 of PMLA-2002 as well as the judgment of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary that the power conferred upon the ED by virtue of Section 50 of PMLA-2002 empowers them to summon any person whose attendance may be crucial either to give some evidence or to produce any record during the course of investigation or proceeding under the PMLA-2002. The persons so summoned are also bound to attend in person or through authorized agent and are required to state truth upon any subject concerning which such person is being examined or is expected to make statement and to produce document as may be required in the case. In the present case the investigation conducted by the State Police in FIR No. 206 of 2023 registered at Police Station Cyber Crime Vishakhapatnam Commissionorate under the scheduled offences which revealed that the money made via the app was transferred to different accounts till it was siphoned off to a person named Sourabh Chandrakar a native of Chhattisgarh who presently lives in Dubai - The FIR was one of scheduled offences included in the ECIR recorded in respect of the petitioner. Statements of the close friends and associates of the petitioner were recorded under Section 50 of PMLA-2002 and they disclosed that the petitioner is one of the main promoters of Mahadev Online Book and this was further corroborated by the digital evidence gathered during investigation. Conclusion - Considering all these evidences learned Special Court on being application made by the ED issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner and the learned Special Court has rightly exercised its jurisdiction to issue said non-bailable warrant. It is settled law that the provisions of PMLA-2002 are not limited to the accused named in the criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence but it would apply to any person if he is involved in any process or activities connected with the proceeds of crime and as per the investigation the petitioner was found involved in possession of proceeds of crime emanating out of the operation of Mahadev Online Book. There are no ground to disagree with the order dated 04.09.2023 passed by the learned Special Court (PMLA-2002) by which the non-bailable warrant (open-ended) is issued against the petitioner and to interfere with the same - petition dismissed.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal issues considered in the judgment include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant: The Court analyzed the issuance of a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner by the Special Court under the PMLA. The relevant legal framework includes Section 70 of the CRPC and Section 65 of the PMLA, which allow for the issuance of warrants in aid of investigation. The Court found that the Special Court had the authority to issue such a warrant, especially given the petitioner's non-compliance with summons and evasion of investigation. Service of Summons to a Non-Resident: The Court considered whether the summons issued under Section 50 of the PMLA to the petitioner, who resides outside India, were valid. The legal framework includes Section 105 of the CRPC, which outlines the procedure for serving summons to individuals in contracting states. The Court held that the summons were served in accordance with the law at the petitioner's last known address in India, and the petitioner was bound to attend as per the summons. Maintainability of Petition through Power of Attorney: The Court examined whether the petition filed through a power of attorney holder was maintainable. The legal precedents considered include the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which allows for such petitions under certain circumstances. The Court found that the petition was maintainable, rejecting the respondent's objection to the filing through a power of attorney holder. Jurisdiction and Power to Issue Warrants: The Court analyzed the jurisdiction and power of the Special Court to issue non-bailable warrants under the PMLA and CRPC. It considered the judgments of higher courts which affirm that a Magistrate can issue warrants during investigation for non-bailable offenses. The Court concluded that the Special Court acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the warrant against the petitioner. Implications of Foreign Citizenship and Residency: The Court addressed the implications of the petitioner's foreign citizenship and residency in Dubai. It considered the lack of an extradition treaty between India and Vanuatu, where the petitioner holds citizenship. The Court determined that the petitioner's foreign status did not exempt him from compliance with Indian legal processes, especially given the evidence of his involvement in money laundering activities. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the issuance of the non-bailable warrant by the Special Court was justified and within its jurisdiction. It emphasized that the PMLA empowers authorities to summon any person for investigation purposes, and non-compliance can lead to legal consequences. The Court also upheld the validity of the petition filed through a power of attorney holder, citing relevant precedents. Key legal principles established include the authority of Special Courts under the PMLA to issue non-bailable warrants, the applicability of CRPC provisions in aid of investigation, and the procedural requirements for serving summons to individuals residing outside India. The Court concluded that the petitioner's actions demonstrated an intent to evade legal proceedings, justifying the issuance of the warrant.
|
