9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned from the petitioner does not infringe the constitutional guarantee of protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India - It cannot be said that the respondent lacks jurisdiction to issue summons or has no authority of law to issue summons for the purpose of aiding investigation under the provisions of Money Laundering Act. Petition dismissed. - W.P.No.10633 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 27-4-2015 - Mr. M. Sathyanarayanan, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Prakash Goklaney For Respondent : Mr.M.Dhandapani, Standing Counsel for Enforcement Directorate ORDER The petitioner is arrayed as first accused in C.C.No.9635 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Additional Chief Metro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled to provide the same and thereby deviated from the terms of the loan. It is further alleged that the said company also availed another term loan of ₹ 75 crores from ICICI Bank for expansion programme of 3rd and 4th phase and it was sanctioned against security of second charge of all immovable fixed assets of the borrower across the country. The petitioner subsequently made a request to the Bank of Baroda for modification of the sanction. 3. In sum and substance, the case of the prosecution is that the petitioner, as Managing Director of the above said company, with dishonest intention to cheat the bank, did not comply with the terms and conditions of the sanction and intentionally kept the bank in dark about the utilization of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing for the petitioner would submit that by way of amendment in the year 2009, Section 420 IPC was made as a scheduled offence under the Money Laundering Act and it came into force only on 01.06.2009 and in the case on hand, the assets of the company were declared as Non- Performing Assets on 31.03.2009, three months prior to the said amendment and at that time, Section 420 IPC was not a scheduled offence under the Act and consequently, the respondent has no jurisdiction to issue summons calling upon the petitioner to appear before him in connection with the investigation being conducted under the provisions of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and prays for quashment of the same. 6. Per contra, Mr.M.Dhandapani, learned counsel appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f shall be invalid, or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such notice, summons, order, document or other proceeding if such notice, summons.......is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act. The reasons for introducing Money Laundering Act is that the money laundering causes serious threat not only to the financial systems of the country, but also their integrity and sovereignty and the object of the Act is to prevent money laundering and provide for confiscation of property, derived from income involved in money laundering or materials connected or incidental thereto. Therefore, the points urged by the petitioner are unsustainable. Even in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
