2023 (8) TMI 59 - HC - Money Laundering

Money Laundering - Seeking permission to enter into the jail premises along with the Laptop and other documents to interrogate and record statements - HELD THAT - The petition No. 363/2022 was filed on 10.03.2022. This case was initiated against the respondents in the year 2018 when the FIRs No. RC 0172015A0007 and RC 0172015A0008 was registered on 22.08.2018. The case was thereafter registered as Special PMLA case No. 18/2018. The scanned copies of the LCR reveals that charge was framed on 29.12.2021. On 17.08.2022 the evidence of PW-1 Shri Kishore Kumar Nath was recorded - The so called proceeds of the crime alleged to have been amassed by the respondents came to the notice of the petitioner at a later stage. Trial has already commenced. It is true that if there are any proceeds of the crime the same may have to be attached but at this stage no order can be passed for further investigation as evidence of PW-1 has already been recorded. It has been held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai s case 2019 (10) TMI 1428 - SUPREME COURT that What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power subject of course to the Magistrate s nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid- way through the pre-trial proceedings would amount to a travesty of justice as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1) Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) of the CrPC Reverting back to this case it is apt to reiterate that the so called proceeds of the crime was not specifically described by the petitioner. The procedure of investigation framing of charge and recording of evidence cannot be encompassed into the category of inquiry . Other measures may be adopted by the petitioner at the stage of trial and if any such evidence surfaces the charges can also be altered. However at this juncture recording the statements of the respondents in furtherance of investigation cannot be allowed. The present application under Sections 397/401 stands rejected.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Permission for further investigation and interrogation within jail premises.
2. Applicability of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for further investigation after trial commencement.
3. Interpretation of "investigation" under PMLA, 2002.
4. Applicability of Supreme Court judgments on further investigation powers.

Summary:

1. Permission for Further Investigation and Interrogation within Jail Premises:
The petitioner, Enforcement Directorate (ED), sought permission to enter the jail premises with a laptop and documents to interrogate and record statements of the respondents, who were accused in a money laundering case. The trial court rejected this petition, stating that the case was already fixed for evidence and further interrogation could not be accepted.

2. Applicability of Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. for Further Investigation after Trial Commencement:
The petitioner argued that further investigation could be directed until the trial commences, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others Vs. State of Gujarat. However, the trial court held that since charges had already been framed and the trial had commenced, further investigation could not be allowed.

3. Interpretation of "Investigation" under PMLA, 2002:
The petitioner contended that under PMLA, 2002, "investigation" includes all proceedings conducted by the Director or an authority authorized by the Central Government for the collection of evidence. The trial court failed to appreciate this broad definition and rejected the petitioner's plea for further investigation.

4. Applicability of Supreme Court Judgments on Further Investigation Powers:
The petitioner cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Vinubhai Haribhai's case, which held that a Magistrate's power to order further investigation continues until the trial actually commences. The trial court, however, did not consider this and rejected the petition on the grounds that the trial had already started.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, stating that the so-called proceeds of the crime were not specifically described by the petitioner. It was noted that other measures could be adopted during the trial, and if any new evidence surfaced, charges could be altered. The application for further investigation and interrogation within jail premises was rejected.