9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1982X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13, against the Petitioner/A1, Managing Director, M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Limited, K.P.Vairavan/A2, the then AGM and Branch Head, Bank of Baroda, Corporate Financial Services Branch, Chennai, M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Limited/A3, Registered Office at No.146, 2nd Floor, R.K.Mutt Road, Mandaveli, Chennai-28 and other unknown others, for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420 of IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 3. Thereafter, based on the above said First Information Report, dated 26.07.2013, the charge sheet in CC.No.9635 of 2014 against the Petitioner/A1 and M/s.Subhiksha Trading Services Limited/A2, represented by A1, for the offence under Section 420 of IPC was filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. The allegations against the Petitioner/A1 are that during 2007-2008, the Petitioner/A1 in collusion with one K.P.Vairavan, the then Assistant General Manager, Bank of baroda, Corporate Financial Services Branch, Chennai and others got sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 50 crores from the Bank of Baroda, Corporate Financial Services Branch, Chennai, for the purpose of implementation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 by the Special Court, is bound to adjourn sine die the proceedings to await receipt of application from the 2nd Respondent/ED for transfer of proceedings under Section 44(i)(c) of PMLA and that in such circumstances, the discharge petition filed by the Petitioner should be heard by the Court of competent jurisdiction, which is only the Special Court, where CC.No.4 of 2018 for the offence under Section 4 of PMLA is pending. He would further submit that after the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2018 11 SCC 1 (Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India), the Bombay High Court, in Bail Application No.248 of 2018, dated 04.05.2018, has held that the trial of the scheduled offence and the trial of the complaint under the PMLA should be tried together. He would further submit that the Trial Court has posted the discharge petition for orders, without hearing the Petitioner and would seek an opportunity to put forth his submissions. 7. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, while denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of this Criminal Original Petition, would contend that the case for the predicate offence is a case based on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly scanned through the entire materials. 10. At the outset, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are in respect of striking down Section 45(1) of the PMLA, as constitutional, in so far as it imposes two further conditions for releasing on bail and relating to consideration of bail applications without application of twin conditions contained in Section 45 of the Act. In the said decisions, no finding has been rendered in respect of trying of cases for offences under the predicate/ scheduled offences and the complaint under the PMLA together. Hence, the said decisions cannot be made applicable for deciding the case on hand. 11. Further, on a scrutiny of the materials, it is seen that the Petitioner was charged for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, for having committed serious bank frauds and thereby, causing a wrongful loss to the Bank of Baroda to the tune of several crores. The 1st Respondent/CBI has investigated the matter and finally laid a charge sheet as against the Petitioner/A1 and A2 Company represented by A1 for the offences under Section 420 of IPC. The Petitioner/A1 has also filed a discharge petition in Crl.MP.No.752 of 2016, before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation by the authority authorised to file a complaint under this Act, commit the case relating to the scheduled offence to the Special Court and the Special Court shall, on receipt of such case proceed to deal with it from the stage at which it is committed; (d) a Special Court while trying the Scheduled offence of the office of money-laundering shall hold trial in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), as it applies to a trial before a Court of Session. (2) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to affect the special powers of the High Court regarding bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and the High Court may exercise such powers including the power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of that section as if the reference to "Magistrate" in that section includes also a reference to a "Special Court" designated under Section 43." 15. A reading of the Section 44 of the PMLA, makes it clear that only the offences punishable under the said Act and connected schedule offences alone are to be tried by the Special Court constituted for the said Act. The impugned proceedings, which are sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent/Enforcement Directorate is taken by this Court, there will be unnecessary protraction of the proceedings and unwarranted delay in the entire criminal prosecution launched by the CBI before the concerned Court. 20. The main object of constituting a Special Court is only for speedy trial of the cases for the offences of money laundering. Hence, inasmuch as such an offence of money laundering was not charged by the 1st Respondent/CBI, the investigation done by the 1st Respondent/CBI and the charge sheet laid by them before the Special Court for CBI cannot be transferred on the mere fact that the aforesaid offence was the basis of the money laundering. If such a view is adopted, all the cases pertaining to predicate offences/ fraud of the bank money will be stayed once the complaint under the PMLA is filed in the Special Court. 21. As stated above, in a batch of Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.OP.Nos.25157 to 25168 of 2016, this Court, by order dated, 14.06.2017, in similar circumstances, had negatived a similar prayer, seeking joint trial. This Court also is of the firm opinion that the cases, arising out of money laundering, pending before the other Courts other than the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
