2020 (12) TMI 616 - HC - Money Laundering

Grant of Anticipatory Bail - Money Laundering - diversion of funds - main plank of the prosecution is that funds from the bank are diverted for purposes other than stated business of the firm by routing funds obtained in the account of M/s HLF and M/s HSE and directed to M/S Mashreq Communication Limited, which is a Mumbai based company indulged in the production of films - HELD THAT - No case for interference is made out at this stage for interference in the proceeding launched against the petitioner under PML Act, 2002 - The petitioner has full right and liberty to move an appropriate application for grant of anticipatory bail. In light of the fact that for the same property, indulgence have been shown by the appellate tribunal dealing with the fact and issue, it is provided that in case an application for anticipatory bail is moved by the petitioner within a period of ten days from today then the same may be considered and decided expeditiously by the Special Judge, PML Act in accordance with law and till the decision taken on the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner - the Special Judge, PML Act shall decide the application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner expeditiously and the petitioner undertakes not to take any unnecessary adjournment and nor shall grant any unnecessary adjournments. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to proceedings under Prevention of Money Laundering Act based on lack of evidence of offense.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the proceedings before the Special Court, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, arguing that no offense was evident from the charge-sheet. The case stemmed from loans taken by two firms causing a loss to a bank. Irshad Alam, as an authorized signatory, was accused of actively participating in submitting dishonest export documents to induce the bank to purchase export bills beyond sanctioned limits. The prosecution alleged that funds were diverted for personal gain, and the petitioner avoided investigation by not appearing before the Enforcement Directorate.

The prosecuting agency contended that the petitioner failed to cooperate during the investigation, shifting the burden to prove innocence under Section 24 of the PML Act. They argued that sufficient evidence indicated the petitioner's involvement in money laundering, including purchasing property with diverted funds. The defense highlighted challenges to earlier proceedings regarding property in Agra and sought anticipatory bail.

The court, considering submissions and legal precedents, found no grounds to interfere with the ongoing proceedings. Referring to a Supreme Court ruling, the court emphasized the right to seek anticipatory bail and directed the petitioner to apply within ten days. Pending the bail decision, no coercive action was permitted. The Special Judge was tasked to promptly decide on the anticipatory bail application, with the petitioner undertaking not to delay the process.

In conclusion, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was disposed of with the mentioned directions, ensuring a timely resolution of the anticipatory bail application while maintaining the status quo regarding coercive measures against the petitioner.