JUDGMENT

Deepak Maheshwari, J. - On resuming the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents at the outset mentioned that as per the search made on the site of Supreme Court of India, an SLP No. 4466/2017 preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement against the judgment dated 22.3.2017 is found to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

2. Copy of the order dated 24.7.2017 has been placed on record by learned counsel for the respondents passed in SLP (Crl) No. 4466/2017 titled as Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. , which reads as under:-

"Leave granted.

In the meantime, the impugned judgment and order will not operate as a precedent.

Liberty is granted to file Rejoinder Affidavit within a period of 4 weeks from today."

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended that heavy reliance was placed by the rival side on Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Adjudicating Authority (PMLA) which was mainly based on the case of Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd. It has also been contended by counsel for the respondent that in Ajay Kumar Gupta's case (supra), the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sajjan Singh v. State of Punjab was not considered. Thus, the judgment in Ajay Kumar Gupta's case was per incurium. It has further been contended by counsel for the respondents that in the order 24.7.2017, referred to above, the judgment in "Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd." has been held as not to operate as a precedent, so the finding given in Ajay Kumar's Case also goes away and cannot be taken help by the petitioner's side.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that that in the SLP preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd., leave has been granted and thus it has been converted into appeal. The appeal is said to be pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court for final hearing, last date of its listing being 4.5.2018.

5. Learned counsel for both the sides submit that in view of the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court is seized with the matter regarding the retrospectively of the scheduled offence added in PMLA Act and authoritative pronouncement is expected soon as the matter has been listed for final disposal, it will be appropriate to wait for the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court which will hlld ground.

6. Counsel for both the sides agree that the fate of the criminal misc. petition preferred by the petitioners will be finally decided by the pronouncement by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Pvt. Ltd.

7. In view of above, hearing in the petition is deferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has expressed his anxiety about the relief claimed by the petitioners, in so far as it relates to converting the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioners into bailable one. Counsel submits that as the fate of criminal misc. petition will be decided lateron, this issue, being urgent in nature may be dealth with immediately.

9. In this regard, learned counsel for the respondents has taken the objection that by way of pending criminal misc. petition, challenge has been made by the petitioners to the orders impugned dated 12.3.2018 (Annex.5 & 6). But the petition was not directed against the order dated 15.3.2018 whereby the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C , 1973was rejected by the learned trial court. Counsel submits that the order dated 12.3.2018 gets merged into the order dated 15.3.2018 and unless the later order is challenged, no relief can be claimed by the petitioners. He, therefore, contends that this relief cannot be granted to the petitioners.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that such technicalities cannot be pitted against the prayer made by way of this criminal misc. petition. He contends that the order dated 12.3.2018 is to the effect of taking co