IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Anu Malhotra, J.
Tahir Hussain - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate - Respondent
Crl.Rev.P. 775 of 2022 and Crl.M.A. No. 23452 of 2022
Decided On : 24-11-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court's jurisdiction and authority to proceed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the alleged money laundering activities. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evidence collected and witness statements. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. charges filed due to prima facie evidence. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. interconnections of fraudulent transactions indicate criminal intent. (Para 9 , 10) |
ORDER
Anu Malhotra, J. The petitioner, Tahir Hussain, arrayed as accused No.1 in ECIR/05-STF/2020 submitted by the Directorate of Enforcement as a complaint under Sections 44 and 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (herein after referred to as the PMLA, 2002 for the alleged commission of the offence of Money Laundering as defined under Section 3 read with Section 70 punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA, 2002, seeks the setting aside of the order dated 3.11.2022 of the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, Shahdara, Karkardooma, in SC No. 181/2020; CNR No.-DLSH-01-00-6179-2020 Case No. ECIR/-05-STF/2020 titled Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Tahir Hussain, whereby the orders were passed for framing of charges against the petitioner under Section 3 of the PMLA, 2002 punishable under Section 4 of the said enactment.
2. The respondent, the Directorate of Enforcement, was present on advance notice of the petition and exhaustive oral submissions were made on behalf of either side. Pursuant to the directions dated 15.11.2022 the written submissions have also been submitted on behalf of either side.A catena of verdicts has been relied upon on behalf of either side in support of their rival contentions.
3. The brief facts of the case sought to be asserted by the Directorate of Enforcement against the petitioner are to the effect that:
FIR No. 88/2020 Police Station Dayalpur, under Sections 307/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, qua an occurrence on the date 25.2.2020 at around 3:50 P.M. was registered wherein the complainant Ajay Goswami stated that on 25.2.2020 he had come to the house of his uncle Rakesh Sharma and it was around 3:50 P.M. when he was going to his house at Khajuri and when he reached the corner of the gali he saw a crowd of persons throwing stones and firing bullets on the main road, Karawal Nagar and these persons were committing riots and on seeing them he (Ajay Goswami) started running towards the house of his uncle and then a bullet like thing forcelyhit his right buttock and the persons who were standing there informed that between Gali No. 5 and 6 persons named Gulfam and Tanveer were firing bullets continuously and people standing there asked him to go. inter alia, the complainant of this FIR stated that the person who picked him up had informed that many persons were firing bullets and throwing petrol bombs from the house of Tahir Hussain (the petitioner herein) and were throwing stones.
FIR No. 59/2020 Police Station Crime Branch under Sections 147/148/149/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered on a complaint of SI Arvind Kumar No. D-5708 who stated that a secret informer had informed him that the riots which took place in Delhi on the dates 23rd, 24th and 25th February, 2020,were a well-planned conspiracy hatched by a student Umar Khalid of the JNU and his companions who were connected with various organizations together and that Umar Khalid had given inciting speeches and made appeals to the people to block the public roads during the proposed visit of the President of America on 24.2.2020 and 25.2.2020 so that a propaganda could be spread at the International level during the travel of the President of America that atrocities were being committed on the minorities in India.
inter alia, it had been stated in this FIR that under this conspiracy at many houses at Mauzpur, Kardampuri, Jafrabad, Chandbagh, Gokalpuri and Shiv Vihar and the areas around the same, fire arms, petrol bombs, acid bombs, stones catapults to throw the same and other deadly weapons were collected and at different places, the ladies and children gathered



AI
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....
The court ruled that in economic offenses, particularly money laundering, anticipatory bail is rarely granted due to the grave nature of allegations and potential interference with investigations.
(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 court emphasized that mere familial connections do not establish complicity in money laundering; direct involvement in proceeds of crime must be proven.
The conditions for granting bail under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act are mandatory, requiring the court to be satisfied of the accused's non-guilt and lack of likelihood to commit further of....
Money Laundering – Power to arrest under Section 19 (1) of PMLA is not for the purpose of investigation – Arrest can and should wait and power in terms of Section 19(1) of PMLA can be exercised only ....
The court upheld the necessity of trial for charges framed under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, emphasizing that prima facie evidence supports the petitioner’s involvement in fraudulent acti....
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.