SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Anoop Bartaria & Etc. – Appellants
Versus
Dy. Director Enforcement Directorate & Anr. – Respondents
Special Leave Petition(Crl.) No. 2397-2398 of 2019
Decided on : 21-04-2023
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 45 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Offence of money laundering – Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) – Serious allegations of money laundering are alleged against both petitioners in prosecution complaint and sufficient material particulars have been narrated in complaint to substantiate the allegations, which prima facie show direct involvement of petitioners in alleged offences of money laundering – Knowledge of accused that he was dealing with proceeds of crime, would not be a condition precedent or sine qua non required to be shown by prosecution for lodging complaint under the Act – Apart from having knowledge, if a person who directly or indirectly attempts to indulge or is actually involved in process or activity connected with proceeds of crime, is also guilty of offence of money laundering – In instant case, direct involvement of petitioners in activities connected with proceeds of crime has been alleged, along with material narrated in complaint which would require a trial to be conducted by competent court – Power to quash complaint under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection – There being enough material to show prima facie involvement of petitioners in alleged offence of money laundering, as contemplated under PMLA High Court had rightly dismissed petitions filed by petitioners – Petitions dismissed. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 29 and 32)
(B) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Special Leave Petition – Very practice of not filing essential and relevant documents, more particularly, documents in respect of which a relief is sought in SLPs, is strongly deprecated – Non-production of relevant documents especially documents in respect of which relief is sought, along with SLPs could be sole ground for rejection of SLPs at the outset. (Para 30)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners by way of these petitions have challenged the common judgment and order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 704 of 2018 and S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 757 of 2018, whereby the High Court has dismissed both the petitions imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
Findings of Court:
Money laundering poses a serious threat not only to the financial systems of the countries but also to their integrity and sovereignty. Hence any lenient view in dealing with such offences would be a travesty of justice.
Result : Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The petitioners by way of these petitions have challenged the common judgment and order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 704 of 2018 and S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 757 of 2018, whereby the High Court has dismissed both the petitions imposing cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
2. The S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 704 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner – Anoop Bartaria, Director of World Trade Park Ltd. seeking a prayer to quash ECIR No.JPZO/01/2016 registered by the Jaipur Zonal Office of Enforcement Directorate, with further prayer against the respondents not to file any criminal complaint against the petitioner and not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner in respect of the said ECIR. The S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 757 of 2018 was filed by the petitioner – Anoop Bartaria, the Director, World Trade Park Ltd., and by M/s World Trade Park Ltd, a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, seeking a prayer to quash and set aside the prosecution complaint in ECIR No.JPZO/01/2016.
3. As per the case of the petitioners, the petitioner- Anoop Bartaria is a leading and an awarded engineer/architect having an expertise in providing structural, architectural and design consultancy services and is also the Chairman and Managing Director of the World Trade Park Ltd., (Erstwhile M/s R.F. Properties & Trading Ltd.) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The World Trade Park is one of the most sought-after real estate commercial properties situated at JLN Marg, Jaipur. The World Trade Park Company is engaged in the business of selling and leasing commercial spaces to various interested buyers/purchasers.
4. One Mr. Bharat Bomb and his associates approached the petitioners for the purchase of commercial units in the said World Trade Park and booked certain units. Initially the commercial units were booked in the name of Raj Darbar Material Trading Pvt. Ltd. by the said Bharat Bomb, and the amounts thereof in aggregate Rs. 74.02 crores were paid to the petitioners through demand draft and/or RTGS. Further certain amounts totaling Rs. 1.4 crores were received by the petitioner- Anoop Bartaria from Bharat Bomb towards architectural designing and consultancy services towards a real estate project being brought about by Mr. Bomb in Udaipur. However, subsequently Mr. Bomb and his associates, asked the petitioners to register the units in the name of new entities, and therefore the petitioners returned the amount back deposited by M/s. Raj Darbar Material Trading Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter in the year 2015, 34 commercial spaces were sold by the petitioners in favour of Mr. Bharat and his associates by executing 34 registered sale deeds. According to the petitioners, the amounts were received through demand drafts and/or RTGS, and all legal formalities required for registration were also followed in due course. The possession of the said units was also handed over to the respective entities/persons as instructed by Mr. Bomb.
5. The petitioners had taken loan/financial assistance from IDBI Bank and DHFL, as also from UCO Bank, mortgaging the units/spaces of World Trade Park with the said banks. On 04.10.2014, the petitioners had obtained NOC from UCO Bank for the release of a particular immovable property admeasuring 23837 sq.ft. and on 23.12.2014 had obtained NOC from IDBI Bank, Jaipur for transfer of a particular units subject to the compliance of the conditions mentioned therein. Similar, NOC for the sale of area was also issued by DHFL, Mumbai on 24.03.2015 for transfer of units admeasuring 11538 sq.ft.
6. As per the further case of the petitioners, the petitioner- Anoop Bartaria had purchased three offices namely office nos. 407, 408 and 409 in the World Trade Park in his personal capacity and had paid the amount through his current account which had no connection with Mr. Bharat Bomb or his associates.
7. A
Nikesh Tarachand Shah Vs. Union of India and Another
Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Another vs Special Judicial Magistrate and Others
(1) Offence of money laundering – Knowledge of accused that he was dealing with proceeds of crime, would not be a condition precedent or sine qua non required to be shown by prosecution for lodging ....
Money laundering charges under PMLA require clear evidence linking individuals to a scheduled offence, which was absent in the petitioners' case, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of the existence of proceeds of crime for the commission of an offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Launderin....
(1) ECIR – Application seeking quashing/stay of proceedings – Commission of scheduled offence is prerequisite and sine-qua-non for initiating investigation under PMLA.(2) Quashing of criminal proceed....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA must be satisfied before granting bail in a money laundering case, and the accused's involvement ....
The presence of a scheduled offence legitimizes the existence of an ECIR and allows the department to continue the investigation. However, the settlement or quashing of scheduled offences in FIRs pro....
The court established that the offense of money laundering under PMLA cannot exist independently of a scheduled offense.
The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial probable causes to believe the accused is not guilty, the requirement to prove allegations beyond reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence u....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.