9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 358X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upertech and its group companies alleging cheating to the tune of Rs. 228 crores. On these complaints, 26 FIRs came to be registered under Section 120B read with Sections 406/420/467/471 IPC by various agencies i.e., EOW, Delhi Police; Haryana Police and U.P. Police. Statedly, investigations are pending in these cases and no chargesheet has been filed till date. On 09.09.2021, the present case being ECIR/21/STF/2021 came to be registered. The petitioner was arrested on 27.06.2023 and produced before Special Judge, PMLA, who remanded him to ED's custody till 10.07.2023. On 10.07.2023, the petitioner was again remanded to judicial custody for a further period of 14 days, which was continued from time to time. On 24.08.2023, ED filed the complaint against the present petitioner and others. Concededly, this complaint came to be filed within 60 days. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the same on 26.09.2023. 3. Petitioner has contended that on the date of filing of the prosecution complaint, the investigation was incomplete. This contention is premised on two grounds firstly, that the complaint was not accompanied by the FSL report and secondly, that ED after filing of the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erted to M/s Sarv Realtors Private Limited to the extent of Rs. 444 crores; M/s ASP Sarin Reality Pvt. Ltd. to the extent of Rs. 154.99 crores; M/s Palash Building Solutions Private Limited to the extent of Rs. 39.94 crores; and M/s Goodtime Builders Private Limited to the extent of Rs. 14.63 crores. It is also alleged that to hide certain assets i.e., commercial properties purchased in Meerut and Dehradun alongwith certain funds transferred to the petitioner or subsidiary of R.K. Arora Family Trust to the extent of Rs. 44.25 crores from NCLT proceedings, the petitioner siphoned off the same in the guise of back-dated loan agreements. The investigation has revealed that except M/s Sarv Realtors Private Limited, the remaining companies were already acquired by the Supertech Group. Further, an earlier transaction of Rs. 24 crores from petitioner to Supertech was converted into a loan @ 24% interest rate, while he himself had availed a major portion of the said loan at the interest rate of only 14%. It is also alleged that Supertech rotated its own money and projected it as a loan (without interest) to a subsidiary company, which held prime rent earning properties near Dehradun and Me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigation against the petitioner is incomplete. The right to further investigate is well recognised under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 12. Insofar as the issue of pending FSL report is concerned, this Court takes note of the decision in Dinesh Dalmia (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court was in seisin of a similar issue regarding default bail. In the said case, though a charge-sheet had been filed, it was stated that further investigation on vital points including end use of funds and other foreign investigations were still continuing and that after completion of the remaining investigation, a report would be filed under Section 173 (8) Cr.P.C in due course. It was also mentioned that questioned documents had been sent to GEQD for expert opinion, and the report was awaited, which shall be submitted with additional list of documents. While negating the prayer for default bail, the Court held as under:- "xxx 19. A charge sheet is a final report within the meaning of Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Code. It is filed so as to enable the court concerned to apply its mind as to whether cognizance of the offence thereupon should be taken or not. The report is ordinarily filed in the for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, however, a charge sheet is filed, the said right ceases. Such a right does not revive only because a further investigation remains pending within the meaning of Subsection (8) of Section 173 of the Code. xxx" 13. In Sureshkumar Bhikamchand Jain (Supra), a contention was raised that though chargesheet/supplementary challan had been filed within the stipulated time, the prosecution had not obtained order of sanction. The Supreme Court held:- "xxx 17. In our view, grant of sanction is nowhere contemplated under Section 167 Cr.P.C. What the said section contemplates is the completion of investigation in respect of different types of cases within a stipulated period and the right of an accused to be released on bail on the failure of the investigating authorities to do so. The scheme of the provisions relating to remand of an accused, first during the stage of investigation and, thereafter, after cognizance is taken, indicates that the Legislature intended investigation of certain crimes to be completed within 60 days and offences punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years, within 90 days. In the event, the investigat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It may be noted that the right of the investigating officer to pray for further investigation in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 173 is not taken away only because a chargesheet is filed under sub-section (2) thereof against the accused. Though ordinarily all documents relied upon by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, nonetheless for some reasons, if all the documents are not filed along with the chargesheet, that reason by itself would not invalidate or vitiate the chargesheet. It is also well settled that the court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. Once from the material produced along with the chargesheet, the court is satisfied about the commission of an offence and takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, it is immaterial whether the further investigation in terms of Section 173(8) is pending or not. The pendency of the further investigation qua the other accused or for production of some documents not available at the time of filing of chargesheet would neither vitiate the charge-sheet, nor would it entitle the accused to claim right to get default bail on the ground that the chargesheet was an incomplete char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
