IMPORTANT POINT
Exemption from personal appearance – Power under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. is not meant to be used routinely but only when circumstances so demand.

JUDGMENT

Sashikanta Mishra, J.—The petitioner is the accused in Crl. Misc. Case (PMLA) No. 01 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khurdha at Bhubaneswar.

2. It appears that originally an FIR was lodged by the CID, CB, Cuttack on 30.05.2017 leading to registration of Case No. 13 of 2017 basing on a search conducted in the residential premises of the petitioner on the allegation that he was engaged in procurement of large number of Monitor Lizard hemi-penises and trading of the same online. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted on 28.02.2018 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Bhubaneswar for the offences under Sections 177/182/420 of IPC read with Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar found that the FIR and charge sheet submitted by the CID, CB made out a prima face case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short “PMLA Act”) punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, ECIR bearing No.ECIR/BBSZO/03/2018 dated 14.06.2018 was registered against the petitioner and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the residential premises of the petitioner were searched again and certain incriminating materials were allegedly recovered. It was further found that the said articles had been procured by the petitioner from the proceeds of the crime of illegal possession and sale of Monitor Lizard hemipenises and the same had been layered as movable properties in the form of bank balances in his name and in the name of his proprietorship concern. A provisional attachment order was made on 29.09.2019 and an original complaint has also been filed before the learned adjudicating authority, PMLA, New Delhi for confirmation of attachment of properties. On such facts, the aforementioned complaint was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the PMLA Act, Khordha, Bhubaneswar.

3. Pursuant to summons issued by the Court, the petitioner entered appearance through his counsel and filed a petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from personal appearance and representation through his counsel. Such petition was filed, inter alia, on the ground that he is the only son of his old and ailing parents, who are undergoing treatment for various ailments and that he would not be prejudiced if the trial is conducted in his absence through his counsel. However, by order dated 16.08.2022, the Court below rejected the petition taking note of the fact that money laundering is an economic offence and Section 45 of the PMLA Act, 2002 is restrictive in nature. The said order is impugned in the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4. Heard Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gopal Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the Enforcement Directorate, Bhubaneswar.

5. Mr. Panda submits that the petitioner is the only son of his old and ailing parents, who are suffering from several ailments and require constant medical attention. Further, the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Court physically whenever it is felt necessary for the case. He is also ready to undertake that he shall not dispute his identity at any point of time. It is also argued by Mr. Panda that Section 45 of PMLA Act, could not have been invoked by the Court below as a ground to reject the petition under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. because the total proceeds of the crime according to the prosecution is only Rs.3,19,100/-. Referring to the first proviso to Section 45 of the PMLA Act, Mr. Panda argues that the alleged proceeds of the crime being much less than Rs.1 Crore, the rigors of the provision would not apply. Even otherwise, the amount of proceeds being so less, the finding of the Court below that it being an economic offence would have an impact on the national economy and security is quite farfetched. Mr. Panda sums up his argument by contend