2021 (4) TMI 821 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - incriminating materials against the petitioners to connect the petitioners in the involvement of the offence under PMLA Act, present or not - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the respondent authority filed the complaint against 15 persons u/s.245(2)Cr.P.C., read with Sections 3, 4 and 8 (5) of PMLA Act, in which these petitioners have been arrayed as A-14, A-15 respectively - A reading of the averments made in the complaint in paragraph 7.14 reveals that there is allegation against A-14 and in paragraph 7.15 prima facie there is allegation against A-15. In order to support the said allegation, the Government Advocate produced copy of the statements given by A-14, A-15 and further statement given by A-4, which clearly reveal the role of the present petitioners. Therefore, once prima facie allegations against these petitioners are made out, trial court can proceed with the complaint by framing charges. While deciding petition u/s.245(2) Cr.P.C., the court need not conduct a roving enquiry on the materials placed by the prosecution and the admissibility and the validity of the statement given by the other accused have to be decided only at the time of trial and the defence taken by the accused need not be considered in deciding the petition u/s.245(2) Cr.P.C. It can be decided only after trial and therefore, this court finds that prima facie there are averments in the complaint and also to support the averments, the prosecution also relied on the statements given by the Revision Petitioners/A14 and A15. Therefore, under these circumstances, this court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial court. Criminal Revisions are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discharge of petitioners under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. from the case in C.C.No.58/2016.
2. Allegations under Section 3 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 against petitioners A-14 and A-15.
3. Legality of the order passed by the Sessions Judge in dismissing the petition to discharge the petitioners.
4. Admissibility of statements given by A-14, A-15, and A-4 in supporting the allegations against the petitioners.
5. Review of the impugned order for perversity, illegality, or infirmity.

Analysis:

1. The Criminal Revision Petitions were filed against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge in C.C.No.58/2016. The petitioners, accused as A-14 and A-15, sought discharge from the case under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge dismissed the petition, leading to the filing of separate revisions by both petitioners.

2. The respondent filed a complaint under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, against the petitioners and others. The petitioners argued that there was no evidence connecting them to the alleged offenses and that the monetary transactions in question did not constitute money laundering. They contended that the order to dismiss their discharge petition should be set aside.

3. The Government Advocate argued that there were averments and incriminating materials against the petitioners in the complaint. The statements given by the petitioners and another accused implicated the petitioners in the alleged offenses. The defense's arguments were deemed irrelevant at the discharge petition stage, and the Sessions Judge's decision to dismiss the petition was supported.

4. The court examined the complaint and statements provided, finding prima facie allegations against the petitioners. It was noted that the defense's arguments and the validity of statements would be addressed during the trial, not at the discharge petition stage. The court concluded that there was no illegality in the Sessions Judge's order.

5. Upon review, the court found no perversity in the Sessions Judge's order and dismissed the Criminal Revisions. The petitioners were directed to present their defense during the trial, with the Sessions Judge instructed to frame charges and proceed with the case, which had been pending since 2016.