9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 963 - HC - Money LaunderingFugitive economic offender - requirements of section 297 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of the Criminal Manual issued by the Bombay High Court complied with or not - HELD THAT - The Deputy Director is very specific about his knowledge and it is mentioned in the verification that whatever was stated in the said application was true and correct to the best of his knowledge derived from the records. Section 297 of Cr.P.C. mentions that the deponent making the affidavit shall separately state such facts as he was able to prove from his own knowledge and such facts as he has reasonable ground to believe to be true, and in the case of his belief, he has to state the grounds of such belief. In the present case, the verification mentions that the application is filed to the best of the deponent s knowledge derived from the records. Section 21 of the FEO Act gives an overriding effect to the FEO Act and therefore even as per Section 5 of Cr.P.C. and also as per Section 21 of the FEO Act, the special procedure prescribed under the FEO Act will not get affected by any provision under Cr.P.C. All the requirements under Section 4 of the FEO Act and under Rule 3 of the FEO Rules are properly complied with in this case - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence the application is rejected.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application under Section 4 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act (FEO Act) required to be supported by an affidavit as per Section 297 of Cr.P.C. 2. Whether the verification clause in the application under Section 4 of the FEO Act was proper. 3. Whether the special procedure under the FEO Act overrides the provisions of Cr.P.C. Summary: 1. Requirement of Affidavit under Section 297 of Cr.P.C.: The applicant contended that the application under Section 4 of the FEO Act was not maintainable as it was not accompanied by an affidavit as required under Section 297 of Cr.P.C. The applicant argued that the averments in the application must be supported by a proper affidavit to bind the person filing the application. The applicant emphasized that the provisions of Cr.P.C. should apply unless there is inconsistency with the FEO Act, and since there was no inconsistency, the affidavit requirement under Section 297 of Cr.P.C. should be adhered to. 2. Verification Clause in the Application: The verification clause in the application stated that the contents were true and correct to the best of the deponent's knowledge derived from records. The applicant argued that this was insufficient and did not meet the requirements of Section 297 of Cr.P.C. and the Criminal Manual, which mandate that the affidavit should clearly state the source of information or belief. The applicant cited various judgments to support this contention. 3. Special Procedure under FEO Act: The respondent argued that the FEO Act provides a special procedure, which does not require an affidavit as per Cr.P.C. The respondent emphasized that the FEO Act and its rules prescribe the form and manner of the application, which were complied with in this case. The respondent further argued that the FEO Act has an overriding effect as per Section 21, and the special procedure under the FEO Act should be followed. Court's Reasoning and Decision: The court found that the verification clause in the application was proper as it clearly stated that the knowledge was derived from records. The court held that there was no infirmity in the verification and that it complied with the requirements of the Criminal Manual. The court also noted that the application was filed in the format prescribed under Rule 3 of the FEO Rules, which was sufficient compliance with Section 4 of the FEO Act. The court agreed with the respondent that the special procedure under the FEO Act overrides the provisions of Cr.P.C. as per Section 21 of the FEO Act. The court emphasized that the FEO Act was enacted to deter fugitive economic offenders and to preserve the rule of law, and its provisions should be followed. The court concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the impugned order and rejected the application, vacating the interim relief. The court also disposed of the pending interim applications. Conclusion: The application under Section 4 of the FEO Act did not require an affidavit as per Section 297 of Cr.P.C. The verification clause in the application was proper and complied with the requirements. The special procedure under the FEO Act overrides the provisions of Cr.P.C., and the application was correctly filed in accordance with the FEO Act and its rules. The court rejected the application and vacated the interim relief.
|
