9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1044 - HC - CustomsCriminal complaint for offence u/s 132, 35 (1)(i)(A) 135(1)(i)(C) of Customs Act - Export of restricted goods by misdeclaring as different goods - Money Laundering - Scheduled Offence - ECIR was not given to the present petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court finds that the proceedings in question are at a very nascent stage, and the learned Additional Solicitor General has categorically submitted that the present petition itself is premature at this stage, as it is only a stage of issuance of summons, and the petitioner do not qualify as a person aggrieved; but at the same time, when question was posed to the learned Additional Solicitor General that whether any chances of arrest are there, he fairly submitted that Section 19 of the Act of 2002 empowers them to make an arrest, and thus, there cannot be a denial of seeking invocation of the said provision of law. Since it is an accepted position that no offence has been found to be made out against the present petitioner until now and no material so as to make such arrest is available on record till date, therefore, the present stay petition is disposed of, with a direction to the petitioner to immediately appear in person before the respondents in pursuance of the summons issued to him by the respondents and cooperate with the investigation to his best. Let the criminal writ petition be listed after eight weeks, for final hearing.
Issues:
1. Stay petition filed by the petitioner challenging the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Allegations of irregularities in exporting a restricted commodity and imposition of penalties under Customs Act, 1962. 3. Legal arguments presented by both the petitioner's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General. 4. Interpretation of the stage of the proceedings and the possibility of arrest under Section 19 of the Act of 2002. 5. Court's decision on the stay petition and directions given to the petitioner and respondents. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, an old man aged 72 years and a business proprietor, challenged the proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner's business premises were raided, summonses were issued, but necessary information regarding Scheduled Offence and ECIR was not provided to the petitioner, who has an unblemished business record. The petitioner sought access to necessary documents and expressed willingness to cooperate with the investigation. 2. The Additional Solicitor General opposed the stay petition, citing that it was premature as no arrest or formal proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner. He highlighted that a criminal complaint was filed under the Customs Act, 1962, alleging irregularities in exporting a restricted commodity. The Additional Solicitor General argued that a prima facie case for money laundering was established based on the documents from the Customs Act proceedings, justifying the investigation. 3. Both parties relied on various legal judgments to support their arguments. The petitioner's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General presented contrasting views on the stage of the proceedings and the petitioner's status as a person aggrieved. The petitioner's counsel emphasized the lack of evidence against the petitioner, while the Additional Solicitor General stressed the seriousness of the alleged offences and the need for investigation. 4. The Court acknowledged that the proceedings were at a nascent stage and refrained from delving into the case's merits to avoid prejudicing either party. However, the Court recognized the possibility of arrest under Section 19 of the Act of 2002, leading to a cautious approach in handling the stay petition. The Court balanced the petitioner's right to cooperate with the investigation and the need to prevent any unnecessary apprehension of arrest. 5. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the stay petition, directing the petitioner to appear before the respondents and cooperate with the investigation. The Court restrained the respondents from taking coercive steps or arrest against the petitioner but allowed for the interim order's vacation if the petitioner failed to cooperate. The Court scheduled the criminal writ petition for final hearing after eight weeks, maintaining a balance between the petitioner's rights and the investigative process.
|
