Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIRUDDHA BOSE, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Tarun Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. of 2023 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9431 of 2023)
Decided On : 20-11-2023
(A) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 50 – Offence of money laundering – Offence of money laundering under Section 3 of Act is an independent offence regarding process or activity connected with proceeds of crime which had been derived or obtained as a result of criminal activity relating to or in relation to a scheduled offence – Offence of money laundering is not dependent or linked to date on which scheduled offence or predicate offence has been committed – Relevant date is date on which the person indulges in process or activity connected with proceeds of crime – Statements of witnesses/ accused are admissible in evidence in view of Section 50 of the Act and such statements may make out a formidable case about involvement of accused in commission of a serious offence of money laundering – Involvement of the person in any of criminal activities like concealment, possession, acquisition, use of proceeds of crime as much as projecting it as untainted property or claiming it to be so, would constitute offence of money laundering under Section 3 of Act. (Para 15)
(B) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 45 and 50 read with Section 71 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Bail – Offence of money laundering – Court while considering application seeking bail, is not required to weigh evidence collected by investigating agency meticulously, nonetheless, court should keep in mind nature of accusation, nature of evidence collected in support thereof, severity of punishment prescribed for alleged offences, character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to accused, reasonable possibility of securing presence of accused at trial, reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered with, larger interests of public/State etc. – There has been sufficient material collected in form of documents which prima facie show as to how appellant was knowingly a party and actually involved in the process and in activities connected with proceeds of crime – Conditions specified under Section 45 are mandatory – They need to be complied with – Court is required to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail – Such conditions enumerated in Section 45 of PML Act will have to be complied with even in respect of application for bail made under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Burden of proof lies on accused for the purpose of condition set out in Section 45 that he is not guilty of such offence – Economic offences have serious repercussions on development of country as a whole – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22 and 24)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Bail – Parity is not the law – While applying principle of parity, Court is required to focus upon role attached to accused whose application is under consideration – Principle of parity is based on guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of Constitution – However, if any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke jurisdiction of higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar wrong order – Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality or irregularity – If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one or a set of people by any authority or by court, without legal basis or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right benefit on the basis of such wrong decision. (Paras 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-accused being aggrieved by Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 152 of 2023 has preferred present appeal. High Court vide impugned order has dismissed bail application of appellant seeking bail in connection with Complaint Case No. 20/2021 bearing ECIR /DLZO-1/12/2021 arising out of FIR registered for offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Appellant was arrested on 22.06.2022 on fourth supplementary complaint having been filed by respondent under Sections 44 and 45 of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in continuation of complaint dated 01.09.2021, 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 in Case No. 20/2021, for commission of offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.
Findings of Court:
With advancement of technology and Artificial Intelligence, economic offences like money laundering have become a real threat to functioning of financial system of country and have become a great challenge for investigating agencies to detect and comprehend intricate nature of transactions, as also role of the persons involved therein. Lot of minute exercise is expected to be undertaken by Investigating Agency to see that no innocent person is wrongly booked and that no culprit escapes from clutches of the law. When detention of accused is continued by Court, courts are also expected to conclude trials within a reasonable time, further ensuring right of speedy trial guaranteed by Article 21 of Constitution.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bela M. Trivedi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The Appellant-accused being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 18.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Bail Application No. 152 of 2023 has preferred the present appeal. The High Court vide the impugned order has dismissed the said bail application of the appellant seeking bail in connection with the Complaint Case No. 20/2021 bearing ECIR /DLZO-1/12/2021 arising out of FIR No. RC0742020E0014, registered for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B read with sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. The appellant was arrested on 22.06.2022 on the fourth supplementary complaint having been filed by the respondent under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘PML Act’), in continuation of the complaint dated 01.09.2021, 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 in Case No. 20/2021, for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of PML Act.
3. The broad facts and events as discernible from the record may be stated as under :
(ii) The consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India vide the Letter of Engagement dated 18.05.2018 engaged the services of a Forensic Auditor – BDO India LLP for conducting the Forensic Audit of SBFL.
(iii) The Forensic Auditor conducted audit review for the period 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2017 and submitted the report on 25.06.2019, disclosing several financial irregularities and discrepancies in the functioning of SBFL, and alleged that SBFL had failed to discharge its loan liability and caused loss to the consortium member banks to the tune of Rs.3269.42 crores.
(iv) An FIR being NO. RC0742020E0014 came to be registered on 31.12.2020 by the CBI, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell, New Delhi for the offences under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the basis of a written complaint given by the Bank Officials against the Directors/Guarantors of SBFL and against the Employees/servants and other unknown persons.
(v) Since the offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 467 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were specified as the scheduled offences under the Schedule to the PML Act, an ECIR bearing No. ECIR/DLZO-1/12/2021 came to be recorded on 31st January, 2021 against SBFL and others with regard to the said FIR registered by the CBI against the accused for investigation of the commission of offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the PML Act.
(vi) The appellant was summoned by the respondent-authorities for the purposes of investigation and interrogation for about seven times till the first complaint was filed by the respondent on 01.09.2021. Second and third supplementary complaints were filed by the respondent on 11.10.2021 and 18.11.2021 respectively. However, the appellant was not named in the said three complaints.
(vii) When the appellant was in attendance before the respondent pursuant to the call by the investigating authorities on 22.06.2022, he was arrested and on 18.08.2022 the fourth supplementary complaint came to be filed by the respondent arraigning the appellant as the Accused No. 10.
(viii) The appellant filed a bail application in complaint case no.20/2021 before the Special Judge (PC-ACT), Rouse Avenue Court Complex, New Delhi on 18.10.2022, which came to be dismissed by the Special Judge vid
(1) Economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting economy of country as a whole and ....
The court emphasized that bail under the PMLA requires satisfaction of twin conditions regarding the accused's guilt and likelihood of committing further offences, which were not met in this case.
The mandatory conditions under Section 45 of PMLA for granting anticipatory bail were not satisfied, emphasizing economic offences' serious nature.
Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail.
In economic offences, bail is not a right; the burden rests on the applicant to show no risk of interference with justice or likelihood of guilt, reinforced by the position of the accused.
The offence of money laundering under PMLA is independent of underlying scheduled offences; involvement in any process related to proceeds of crime suffices for liability under Section 3.
The offence of money laundering under the PMLA is independent, and involvement in proceeds of crime suffices for liability; stringent conditions for bail must be met.
The court emphasized that in economic offences, especially under the PMLA, bail should not be granted unless the accused demonstrates they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Economic offences like money laundering under the PMLA warrant severe scrutiny for bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial while recognizing the gravity of the allegations and prolonged detenti....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
