9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it returnable on 2nd December, 2015. The notice of rule was served on respondent No.2 on 16.11.2015. On 2.12.2015, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. Hence, this Court called upon learned Central Government Standing Counsel Ms. Trusha K. Patel who normally appears for the respondent No.2 and inquired whether she has any instruction to appear on behalf of respondent No.2. However, she has stated that she has not received any instructions. However, with a view to give one more chance, the matter was adjourned to 10th December, 2015. On 10.12.2015 also, Ms. Trusha K. Patel informed the Court that she had not been instructed to appear in the matter. Hence, the Court has proceeded on the basis of the documents available on the record of this petition. Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant has fairly provided copy of the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.2 before the learned Trial Court as well as the statement of the applicant recorded under Section 50 of the PMLA Act. 3. The brief facts arose from the record are as under :- 3.1 That on 25.3.2015, one Haresh B. Vohra, Police Inspector, Special Operation Group, Vadodar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt No.2 filed a supplementary complaint in the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), the Designated Special Court established under the PMLA being PMLA supplementary Complaint No.10 of 2015. 3.4 Subsequent to his arrest, an application was filed by the applicant before the Special Designated Court at Ahmedabad under Section 439 of the Code read with Section 435 of the PMLA to release him on bail during the pendency of the trial being Criminal Misc. Application No.1751 of 2015. The learned Designated Special Judge by his judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 rejected the said application. Hence this application. 3.5 On 10.12.2015, this Court passed the following order :- "By way of the present application preferred under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, the applicant - original accused No.8 has prayed to release him on regular bail in connection with ECIR No.ECIR/03/AMZO/2015 and PMLA Complaint No.8 of 2015 registered at the instance of the respondent No.2. 2. The matter was listed for the first time before this Court on 29.10.2015, this Court passed the following ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and also projecting or claiming it as untainted property. 4.1 He would submit that the word "proceeds of crime" is defined under Section 2 (u) of the PMLA. As per the said definition, an amount alleged to have been derived by the applicant through cricket betting would not fall under the proceeds of crime since betting is not a scheduled offence. He would submit that betting of cricket is not a scheduled offence since the scheduled offence is defined under Section 2 (y) of the PMLA. He would submit that the only allegation made in the supplementary complaint against the present applicant who is accused No.1 in the supplementary complaint is that the applicant is one of the partners of "SAM DELHI" along with another accused of the Original Complaint No.8 of 2015 who were operating their own book in Delhi making and receiving bets on different matches. The book Sam Delhi has also been found to be giving line directly from stadium for giving ball by ball description ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gone through the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent No.2 before the learned Trial Court. Further, since this Court had occasion to deal with the matter of co-accused and had gathered information with regard to the entire facts of the case, I find that the case of the prosecution is that huge scam of Hawala to the tune of about Rs. 2500 Crores has come in light in the game of Cricket betting. The investigation till date carried out and record recovered and seized from the Farm house at Vadodara on 19.3.2015 reveals that those four accused had received and placed various bets from large number of bookies and punters amounting to Rs. 2500 Crores on different Cricket matches played between 4.12.2014 till 19.3.2015 i.e. the date on which the farm house was raided and searched under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 for the ongoing ICC World Cup Quarterfinal match between India and Bangladesh. Further, the investigation revealed that the applicant along with other accused were actively participating in the illegal activities of betting. 5.1 It is further the case of the prosecution that unless and until there is conspiracy between the applicant and other coaccused to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eds of crime involved in money-laundering relates to any offence specified under paragraph 2 of Part A of the Schedule, the provisions of this section shall have effect as if for the words "which may extend to seven years", the words "which may extend to ten years" had been substituted." 8. Section 3 provides that a person shall be guilty of offence of money laundering when he is directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected proceeds of crime including the concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming it as untainted property. The definition of "proceeds of crime: provided in Section 2 (u) reads as under :- "2 (u) "proceeds of crime" means any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence or the value of any such property;" 9. The "scheduled offence" defined under Section 2 (y) of the PMLA reads as under :- "2 (y) "scheduled offence" means - (i) the offences specified under Part A of the Schedule; or (ii) the offences specified under Part B of the Schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of bail specified in sub-section (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 12. Section 24 of PMLA reads as under :- "24. Burden of Proof - When a person is accused of having committed the offence under section 3, the burden of proving that proceeds of crime are untainted property shall be on the accused." 13. The burden of proof as referred to herein above relates to proceeds of crime. As stated herein above, since the applicant is not facing any charge for any offence under Part A of Schedule, Section 45 (1) of the PMLA would not be prima facie applicable and, therefore, it is not required that the applicant is to be declared as not guilty of such offence at the time of dealing with an application for bail. 14. Under Section 45 (2) of PMLA, the other provisions of the Code would be applicable and, therefore, the case is to be dealt with accordingly. Therefore, I am dealing with the same. As far as the allegations levelled against the present applicant are concerned, I have gone through the statement of the applicant himself. It appears that applicant is one of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
