9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his Companies. It has specifically been observed by the Apex Court in P. CHIDAMBARAM VERSUS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT [ 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT] that the economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society and the merits of the contentions that Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be the predicate offence qua the appellant and whether it is attracted or not and as to whether the Enforcement Directorate had the threshold to acquire jurisdiction under the PMLA, cannot be considered at the stage when this Court is considering only the prayer for anticipatory bail . In view of these observations, it is explicit that the afore-said contention cannot be looked into and adjudicated upon while deciding the instant petition qua the prayer of the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail. This Court deems it appropriate and necessary to precisely discuss the conduct of the petitioner as the same would also be one of the key factors to adjudicate/ascertain his entitlement for the relief as prayed for in this petition. It has specifically been mentioned in Para 2 (VII) (VIII) in the Reply, as initially filed by r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t No.2 registered ECIR No.14/2013. Vide Order No.11 of 2014 (Annexure P-3) as passed therein on 28.07.2014, several land parcels were provisionally attached and the said order was, subsequently, confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide the order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) while observing that the said properties had been acquired by the petitioner in the names of his Companies, by using the proceeds of crime, trailed to his Company M/s A.R.K. Import Pvt. Ltd, as obtained by defrauding the bona-fide investors while using the NSEL (National Stock Exchange Limited) as the platform for this purpose. 3. The present FIR has been registered at the instance of respondent No.2-Directorate, with the allegations that the petitioner has executed the sale deeds in respect of some of the properties attached vide the said orders Annexures P-3 and P-4 and he has siphoned-off the sale proceeds thereof with the help of Hawala/Market Operators whereas respondent No.2-complainant was to take the possession of the said attached properties. It has also been mentioned in the vernacular version of this FIR (Annexure P-1) that during the enquiry, it transpired that the entries qua the said orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of confiscation is passed and they have argued that the proceedings are, presently, continuing/pending in the Special Court at Mumbai and hence, the above-said order is still in force. 7. I find force in the arguments of learned Additional Solicitor General of India and learned Senior Panel counsel (UOI) for respondent No.2 because Section 8(3) of PMLA provides as under:- (3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attachment of the property made under sub-section (1) of Section 5 or retention of property or record, seized or frozen under Section 17 or Section 18 and record a finding to that effect, whereupon such attachment or retention or freezing of the seized or frozen property or record shall- (a) continue during investigation for a period not exceeding three hundred and sixty-five days or the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under this Act before a court or under the corresponding law of any other country, before the competent court of criminal jurisdiction outside India, as the case may be; and.... From the perusal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion, even then the sale of such properties by him to third persons does not constitute any offence under Sections 420 or 467, 465, 468, 471 IPC because the present FIR has not been got registered by the vendees of the said sale deeds who could have been aggrieved because of these sale transactions. To buttress his contentions, he has referred to the observations as made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim Ors vs. State of Bihar Anr. 2009(8) SCC 751. 11. However, this contention is not tenable at this stage because while deciding the present petition as moved by the petitioner for seeking the relief of pre-arrest bail, this Court is not supposed to go to the extent of determining as to whether the offences, as alleged to have been committed in the case, are made out or not because the investigation is still at the nascent stage and the petitioner has yet to join the same. 12. To add to it, the subject FIR is an off-shoot of the economic offence pertaining to the scam involving the investments of the genuine/ bona-fide depositors to the tune of ₹ 5600 crore approximately and a sum of ₹ 720 crore, out of the same, has allegedly been swindled away by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nishable upto imprisonment for life. 16. To cap it all, this Court deems it appropriate and necessary to precisely discuss the conduct of the petitioner as the same would also be one of the key factors to adjudicate/ascertain his entitlement for the relief as prayed for in this petition. It has specifically been mentioned in Para 2 (VII) (VIII) in the Reply, as initially filed by respondent No.2- Directorate, that the petitioner failed to comply with the order Annexure R-2/1 passed by Bombay High Court while granting him the relief of bail. He as well as his wife and another Director of the Company challenged the said attachment orders by way of filing several Writ Petitions even in this Court also and they were directed not to alienate/dispose of the attached properties and not to create any charge or encumbrance or third party rights over the same and their counsel also gave an undertaking to the same effect as reflected in order Annexure R-2/5 passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 11.04.2019 but inspite of the same, he went on to execute the sale deeds in question. These facts and circumstances speak volumes of the fact that the petitioner has been playing hide and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
