9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1795X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate For the Opposite Party : Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi, Advocate ORDER Anil Kumar Choudhary, Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Complaint Case No.ECIR-02/2018 arising out of ECIR/12/PAT/2012 ECIR/13/PAT/2012 in which cognizance has been taken under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. 2. Heard the parties. 3. The brief facts of this case is that three cases have been registered against the co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar and he has been charged inter alia for causing loss to the Government Exchequer. Investigation revealed that the co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar has acquired immovable and movable property from his criminal activities amounting to ₹ 1,76,38,527/-. The allegation against the present petitioner is that he being the Chartered Accountant of Dr. Pradeep Kumar, the petitioner arranged purchase of a property vide sale deed No.9786 dated 31.08.2009 from Sri Arun Kumar Agrawal and the loan of ₹ 20,00,000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner being the Chartered Accountant of the co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar and M/s. Nandlal HUF, has made an accommodation entry so far as loan of ₹ 20,00,000/- from M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited and the loan from M/s. Hindustan Credit Corporation in favour of the co-accused Rajendra Kumar to launder the proceeds of the crime and project the same as untainted. The fact that Indra Lal Kejriwal has stated that the petitioner can explain the transactions of ₹ 4,00,000/- given by him to M/s. Nandlal HUF and that he did not have any idea about the said transaction and as the petitioner, in his statement stated that ₹ 3,00,000/- cash was received from the customers but no supporting documents were produced and ₹ 1,00,000/- transferred from Classic Finance which is run by the petitioner himself shows that the petitioner knowingly involved in concealment and transfer of proceeds of the crime acquired by co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar. It is also alleged that Dr. Pradeep Kumar has laundered illicit wealth inter alia with the help of the petitioner. A failure on the part of Dr. Pradeep Kumar and Rajendra Kumar to submit any evidence regarding source of creat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeds of crime and projection of the same is untainted and has therefore, committed the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of PMLA and punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA Act, 2002. 4. Mr. Anil Kumar the learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is quite innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case with ulterior motive. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused in the predicate/schedule offence of instant case instituted by C.B.I. vide RC-01/A/2011-R registered against the co-accused Dr. Pradeep Kumar in which the same allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that on his advice, loan of ₹ 20,00,000/- was given by M/s. Pathak Telecom Company Private Limited and a loan of ₹ 5,95,000/- was given by Hindustan Credit Corporation for purchase of flat in Sugam Hemant Apartment in Kolkata but the petitioner filed an application for quashing the cognizance in the said case for the offence punishable under Section 109 of the I.P.C. and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Cr.M.P. No.2651 of 2013 and a c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 in so far as it imposes two further conditions for release on bail to be unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. 5. Mr. Prashant Vidyarthi the learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail and submits that consequent upon the declaration of Section 45 (1) of the P.M.L.A. Act, 2002, to be unconstitutional by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nikesh Tarachand (supra), Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 has been amended by Finance Act, 2018 (13 of 2018) by Section 208 (e) of the Finance Act, 2018 (13 of 2018) which reads as follows:- (e) in Section 45, sub-section (1),- (i) for the words punishable for a term of imprisonment of more than three years under Part A of the Schedule the words this Act shall be substituted; (ii) in the proviso, after the words sick and infirm, the words or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-launderin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that in the judgment of Nikesh Tarachand (supra) in para-7, the Hon ble Supreme Court of India has categorically mentioned the wideness of the kind of persons responsible for money laundering by observing as under:- 7. ....... Under Section 3 of the Act, the kind of persons responsible for money laundering is extremely wide. Words such as whosoever , directly or indirectly and attempts to indulge would show that all persons who are even remotely involved in this offence are sought to be roped in. An important ingredient of the offence is that these persons must be knowingly or actually involved in any process or activity connected with proceeds of crime and proceeds of crime is defined under the Act, by Section 2 (u) thereof, to mean any property derived or obtained directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence (which is referred to in our judgment as the predicate offence). Thus, whosoever is involved as aforesaid, in a process or activity connected with proceeds of crime as defined, which would include concealing, possessing, acqui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
