IMPORTANT POINTS
1. Investigation by the authorities, statement recorded and material collected, if prima facie establish that proceeds of crime are projected to be untainted property, in any manner, no fault can be found with the order of taking cognizance by the competent court.
2. For making out an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002, the court is required to consider that any person who involves himself directly or indirectly with any process or activity connected with the proceeds of crime and projects the same to be untainted money, can very well be prosecuted under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002.
3. A person accused under the PMLA, 2002 may not have committed the scheduled offence and such person can be prosecuted for the offence of money laundering even if such person is not guilty of the scheduled offences.
4. Economic offences are required to be dealt with strict approach as these offences affect the economy of the whole Nation and economic offences are committed with a pre-meditated design.

JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Gaur, J.—The present order will decide two sets of cases i.e. Revision Petitions filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by the Special Sessions Court, Jaipur (Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002) – Special Court (Communal Riots Cases), Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur, whereby cognizance has been taken for offence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter shall be referred as ‘PMLA, 2002’) & arrest warrants have been issued to secure the presence of the accused persons.

2. The other set of cases are Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order of the Trial Court wherein it has refused to convert arrest warrants of the petitioners into bailable warrants by not exercising power under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C.

(Revision Petitions)

3. This Court has taken note of the facts from the file of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 273/2019 (Shyam Sundar Singhvi Vs. Union of India), which is treated as the lead case. The facts, in nutshell, are that Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur on 19.09.2015 registered an FIR bearing No.251/2015 under Sections 120-B & 409 IPC and under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 13(2) & 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act against Sanjay Sethi, Shyam Sundar Singhvi-petitioner, Dheerendra Singh @ Chintu, Mohd. Sher Khan, Mohd. Rashid Sheikh, Dr. Ashok Singhvi, Pankaj Gehlot & Pushkar Raj Ameta.

4. The main allegation in the FIR was with regard to misuse of official position of the accused and to hatch criminal conspiracy to cause loss of revenue to the State Exchequer. The prosecution also alleged that acts of the accused amounted to criminal breach of trust and they were involved in making huge money for their personal gains.

5. The Anti Corruption Bureau (in short ‘ACB’) after registration of FIR commenced investigation and filed charge-sheet on 04.11.2015 against the accused persons vide charge-sheet No.276/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13(1)(a)(c)(d), 13(2) & 14 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B and 409 IPC.

6. The ACB in the charge-sheet found that the accused Sanjay Sethi was engaged in the business of mining and he was a tout of the Department of Mines and used to identify businessmen engaged in the mining business anywhere in the State of Rajasthan, with the help of officers of the Department of Mines. The accused Sanjay Sethi, because of his close association with the co-accused Dr. Ashok Singhvi, the then Principal Secretary, Department of Mines, used to get instructions to close the mines of the businessmen for one or another reason and thereafter he used to contact the businessmen and after striking out the deal with the officers of the Department of Mines, got their mines reopened while imposing minor penalty in collusion with the officers of the Department of Mines and in lieu of the said transaction, he used to collect huge amount of money from the businessmen.

7. The ACB also found, after keeping the cell phone of Sanjay Sethi on surveillance, that six mines of co-accused Mohd. Sher Khan were closed on the ground of unsafe mining and other irregularities, only for the purpose of extracting illegal gratification from him for the official functionaries of the Department of Mines. It was further revealed to the ACB that in order to get the mines reopened, Mohd. Sher Khan contacted Sanjay Sethi and Pankaj Gehlot, through their Charted Accountant Shyam Sundar Singhvi for the purpose of reopening of mines. It was found by the ACB that the bribe amount was fixed to the tune of Rs.2.50 Crores and it was alleged that Sanjay Sethi had informed Dr. Ashok Singhvi that deal was finalized at Rs.1.25 Crores and out of which Rs.1 Crore was for Dr. Ashok Singhvi and Rs.25 Lakhs was for others and Dr. Ashok Singhvi had given his consent for the said deal. It was further found by the ACB tha