9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 550 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of bail - money laundering - proceeds of crime - materials procured by the petitioner from the proceeds of the crime of illegal possession and sale of Monitor Lizard hemipenises - whether a case for exemption from personal appearance is made out? - H ELD THAT - In BHASKAR INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS M/S. BHIWANI DENIM APPARELS LTD. ORS. 2001 (8) TMI 1407 - SUPREME COURT it was held that the discretion conferred by Section 205 of Cr.P.C. on the Court is to be used only in rare cases where personal appearance of the accused would cause great hardship on him. In particular, if the accused is residing at a far-off place or has any physical ailment or is otherwise indisposed, the prayer for exemption from personal attendance can be favourbaly considered. But such discretion is not to be exercised routinely or on the mere asking. In the present case, the petitioner claims that he is the only son of his aged parents, who are ill and require constant attention. No document is filed in this regard. This Court finds that the petitioner is a relatively young man, aged about 38 years. He is a resident of Bhubaneswar and also has his business in Bhubaneswar. Therefore, attending the Court can by no stretch of imagination be treated as causing undue hardship on him. As already stated, the power under Section 205 is not meant to be used routinely but only when circumstances so demand. In view of what has been stated hereinbefore, this Court finds the circumstances not justifying exercise of such power by the Court. To such extent therefore, this Court finds no infirmity much less any illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere. Application disposed off.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the petitioner's request for exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. 2. Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA Act in rejecting the petitioner's request. 3. Consideration of the petitioner's personal circumstances and the nature of the offence. Summary: The petitioner is accused in Crl. Misc. Case (PMLA) No. 01 of 2020, linked to an FIR lodged by the CID, CB, Cuttack, alleging illegal trading of Monitor Lizard hemi-penises. The Enforcement Directorate found a prima facie case of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, leading to further investigation and provisional attachment of properties. The petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. on grounds of being the sole caretaker of his ailing parents. The Court below rejected this petition, citing the restrictive nature of Section 45 of the PMLA Act, which the petitioner challenged under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Issue 1: Exemption from Personal Appearance under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Panda argued that the petitioner's personal circumstances warranted exemption, emphasizing that the total proceeds of the crime were less than Rs. 1 Crore, thus the rigors of Section 45 of the PMLA Act should not apply. Mr. Agarwal countered that the seriousness of money laundering is not diminished by the amount involved and that exemption from personal attendance is discretionary and not a vested right. Issue 2: Applicability of Section 45 of the PMLA Act The Court examined Section 45 of the PMLA Act, noting that while it imposes limitations on granting bail, an exception exists for amounts less than Rs. 1 Crore. The Court concluded that the restrictive provisions of Section 45 did not apply in this case due to the lower amount involved, but emphasized that this does not lessen the seriousness of the offence. Issue 3: Consideration of Personal Circumstances and Nature of Offence The Court referred to precedents, including Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. Directorate of Enforcement and Bhaskar Industries Ltd. vs. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd., which outline the judicial discretion to grant personal exemption in rare cases of hardship. However, the Court found no substantial evidence of hardship in the petitioner's case, noting his relatively young age, local residence, and business presence in Bhubaneswar. Conclusion: The Court determined that the petitioner's circumstances did not justify exemption from personal appearance and upheld the lower court's decision. The CRLMC was dismissed as devoid of merit.
|
