9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1342X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithin its scope till the person is being directly or indirectly benefitted by the proceeds of crime. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court i n Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others [ 2022 (7) TMI 1316 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein the Apex Court held that ' The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word and preceding the expression projecting or claiming as or ; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise.' Hence, the complaint prima facie discloses recurring cause and hence the contention as regards prosecution being based on Ex Post Facto amendment, is unsustainable. Section 45 of the PMLA specifically provides that the offences under the Act are non-bailable and cognizable and no person accused of an offence under the Act is entitled for bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given a liberty to oppose the application and the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intenance and services etc. The applicant was also appointed as Director at Peoples General Hospital Pvt. Ltd. The applicant was also appointed Director in Peoples International Services Pvt. Ltd. (PISPL) and PGHIPL. As per the complaint, the present applicant attended all the meetings where the proposals in respect of lending the money to Sarjanik Jal Kalyan Prathmik Nyas were proposed. All the loan given by M/s PGH Pvt. Ltd. during 2001-22, amounting to Rs. 173.78 Crore has been under the watch (Directorship) of the applicant. It is further alleged in the complaint that the applicant signed an agreement dated 27.10.2008 on behalf of M/s PISPL wherein M/s PISPL has agreed to transfer Rs.80 Crore to co-accused S.N.Vijaywargiyaas security deposit. Subsequently, the security deposit of Rs.75.17 Crore was paid by M/s PISPL to co-accused S.N.Vijaywargiya. The agreement was signed by the applicant on behalf of M/s PISPL. Further allegation was levelled against the applicant that he was also the Director at M/s PGH International Pvt. Ltd and during his tenure (2013-2022) Rs.40.1 Crore of money were transferred from PGH International Pvt. Ltd. to co-accused S.N. Vijaywargia. 3. The counse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has already granted anticipatory bail to him and the case of the present applicant is on better footing as the applicant is also aged about 85 years and also suffering from the ailment as mentioned in the certified filed along with the rejoinder. Thus, it is submitted that the applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 4. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent submits that the present application filed by the applicant is liable to be dismissed. It is contended that Paragraphs 6.3 and 24.7 of the complaint reflect the role played by the present applicant and the contention of the present applicant that he was merely a Director and was performing his duties in lieu of salary and did not derive any benefit, is grossly misconceived. It is further contended that the contents of the complaint make it abundantly clear that there are direct allegations against the applicant. It is further contended that a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the Gwalior Bench of this Court by M/s PGH Pvt. Ltd. vide M.Cr.C. No. 41956 of 2023 seeking quashment of the complaint filed under Section 447 of the Companies Act. The said petition has been dismissed by the Gwalior Bench of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the present application be allowed and applicant be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 7. No other point is argued or pressed by the counsel for parties. 8. Heard the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. On perusal of the complaints, it reflects that three complaints were filed by the Deputy Registrar of Companies, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Gwalior M.P. under Section 447 of the Companies Act, 2013. The said complaints were registered vide Complaint No. 3/2021, 10/2021 and 12/2021. As per the allegations levelled in the complaints, one Mr. Ashok Kumar Khosla made investment of Rs. 187.52 Crore by way of purchase of shares in M/s P.G.H. International Private Limited. The company i.e. M/s PGH gave loan to one Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas registered under the M.P. Public Trust Act, 1951. The said loan was not in the interest of the shareholders/company as the rate of interest was much lesser than the prevailing market price and the company had given interest free loans to related parties instead of carrying on its main business activity. Loans given to Sarvajanik Jankalyan Parmarthik Nyas were interest free wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd continues till such time a person is directly or indirectly enjoying the proceeds of crime. The aforesaid section covers all the activities within its scope till the person is being directly or indirectly benefitted by the proceeds of crime. This aspect has been taken into consideration by the Apex Court i n Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others Vs. Union of India and others (supra) wherein the Apex Court in Paragraph 187(v)(a) as under:- Section 3 of the 2002 Act has a wider reach and captures every process and activity, direct or indirect, in dealing with the proceeds of crime and is not limited to the happening of the final act of integration of tainted property in the formal economy. The Explanation inserted to Section 3 by way of amendment of 2019 does not expand the purport of Section 3 but is only clarificatory in nature. It clarifies the word and preceding the expression projecting or claiming as or ; and being a clarificatory amendment, it would make no difference even if it is introduced by way of Finance Act or otherwise. 12. Hence, the complaint prima facie discloses recurring cause and hence the contention as regards prosecution being based on Ex Post Facto amendment, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments made by the applicant that the applicant is suffering from any disorder or ailment. Subsequently, by way of filing rejoinder, the applicant has made effort to demonstrate that he is also a patient of Knee Osteoarthritis and the Doctor has advised him surgery. The said stand has been taken on the basis of certificate, which has been issued to the applicant on 17.3.2024 i.e. after filing of the present bail application. The applicant, even at present, is Director of the Company. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the applicant is not entitled for the benefit of the provision contained in Section 45 of the PMLA as the present applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 45 of the PMLA. 16. Section 45 of the PMLA specifically provides that the offences under the Act are non-bailable and cognizable and no person accused of an offence under the Act is entitled for bail unless the Public Prosecutor is given a liberty to oppose the application and the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. 17. The Ape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
