9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 404X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no investigation can be conducted for offences which are mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA by other investigating agencies and that they are precluded from investigating those offences. The offences are distinct and a person can be convicted and sentenced to punishment under the IPC as well as under the PMLA. Since the offence under the IPC and the offence under the PMLA are distinct offences, investigations for offences under the IPC and for offences under Section 3 of the PMLA can be carried out by different agencies. Section 45(1A) of the PMLA does not exclude other agencies from conducting investigations into the offences mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA. The prosecution for the offences under the IPC and other offences mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA, under which the petitioner is charged, are entirely different and mutually exclusive. It cannot be said that the rights of the petitioner under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India are infringed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that conducting two parallel investigations would infringe the rights of the petitioner under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India is completely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Investigation was carried out. During investigation it was found that M/s Garvit Innovative Promoters Limited, was not registered as a NBFC with the RBI and hence it was not authorized to initiate any collective investment scheme. Total 1544 complaints have been received from multiple victims till the filing of the Status Report. The role of the petitioner has been stated in the Status Report and the same reads as under: 1. During the course of investigation it has been revealed that though accounts of accused companies i.e. M/s Garvit Innovative Promoter Limited (GIPL) and M/s Independent TV Ltd were already maintained with other Banks, but due to connivance by applicant/accused Vijay Sharma, account of the said companies were opened in M/s Noble cooperative Bank, of which accused Vijay Kumar Sharma was C.E.O. These accounts were used for remitting the money collected from the investors of Bike Bot without completion of KYC guidelines by the bank, of which petitioner was CEO. 2. Accused/Petitioner- Vijay Kumar Sharma facilitated main accused- Sanjay Bhati in getting cheque books in favor of M/s GIPL in bulk without due diligence, cheques from which were delivered to in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent No.2 under the PMLA. 5. Heard Mr. Praveen Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Avi Singh, learned ASC for the State and Mr. Amit Mahajan, learned CGSC appearing for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that EOW is conducting parallel proceedings qua Respondent No. 2, which amounts to infringing the fundamental rights of the Petitioner under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the matter being investigated by the EOW is already being undertaken by the respondent No.2 under the PMLA. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Section 45(1A) PMLA to contend that investigation by EOW is excluded when investigation is being undertaken by the respondent No.2 under the PMLA. 7. The provision of PMLA was brought in for preventing money laundering. Section 3 of PMLA which defines the offence of money laundering, reads as under: 3. Offence of money-laundering.- Whosoever directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or knowingly assists or knowingly is a party or is actually involved in any process or activity connected with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Schedule, before a Magistrate or court for taking cognizance of the scheduled offence, as the case may be: Provided further that, notwithstanding anything contained in clause (b), any property of any person may be attached under this section if the Director or any other officer not below the rank of Deputy Director authorised by him for the purposes of this section has reason to believe (the reasons for such belief to be recorded in writing), on the basis of material in his possession, that if such property involved in money-laundering is not attached immediately under this Chapter, the nonattachment of the property is likely to frustrate any proceeding under this Act.] (emphasis supplied) 11. Section 19 of the PMLA which provides for power to arrest reads as under: 19. Power to arrest.- (1) If the Director, Deputy Director, Assistant Director, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government by general or special order, has on the basis of material in his possession reason to believe (the reason for such belief to be recorded in writing) that any person has been guilty of an offence punishable under this Act, he may arrest such p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are distinct and a person can be convicted and sentenced to punishment under the IPC as well as under the PMLA. This Court, at this juncture, is not entering into the debate as to whether an offence under the PMLA is a standalone offence or not, and as to whether a person, even if he is acquitted of an offence mentioned in the first schedule, can still be convicted for an offence under the PMLA. 14. Be that as it may, since the offence under the IPC and the offence under the PMLA are distinct offences, investigations for offences under the IPC and for offences under Section 3 of the PMLA can be carried out by different agencies. Section 45(1A) of the PMLA does not exclude other agencies from conducting investigations into the offences mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA. 15. The prosecution for the offences under the IPC and other offences mentioned in the schedule of the PMLA, under which the petitioner is charged, are entirely different and mutually exclusive. It cannot be said that the rights of the petitioner under Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India are infringed. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that conducting two parallel investiga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
