IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.Jagadish Chandira, J.
P.Anand - Petitioner
Vs.
Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Chennai Zonal Office-I, Chennai - Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.24776 of 2022
Decided On : 01-12-2022
Money Laundering - Abetment - Prevention of Money Launder Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Summary of Acts and Sections: PML Act, 2002 - Section 3 and 4 - The court discussed the petitioner's alleged involvement in abetting the main accused in the offence of money laundering under Sections 3 and 4 of the PML Act. The court analyzed the petitioner's association with various companies, financial transactions, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. The court also considered the legal principle of mens rea and the balance between personal liberty and the interest of society.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Launder Act, 2002. The petitioner sought bail, claiming lack of mens rea and involvement in the alleged offence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's association with various companies and financial transactions indicated his understanding and relationship with the main accused, suggesting mens rea in abetting the offence. The court concluded that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions for grant of bail under the PML Act, and therefore, dismissed the bail petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, alleged to have abetted the main accused in the offence of money laundering, was entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's association with various companies, financial transactions, and the possibility of tampering with evidence. It also analyzed the legal principle of mens rea and the balance between personal liberty and the interest of society.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Criminal Original Petition, finding that the petitioner was not entitled to grant of bail at that stage.
ORDER :
The petitioner, who was arrested by the respondent on 12.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 13.7.2022 for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Money Launder Act, 2002 in ECIR Nos.CEZO-I/05/2019, CEZO-I/37/2020 and CEZO-I/42/2020 on the file of the respondent, seeks bail.
2. The factual aspects in brief are as under:-
(ii) The allegations levelled against the said Companies are that credit facilities were extended to those Companies to the tune of several crores at various stages from the year 1998. Later, due to macro-economic conditions, the Companies started facing severe liquidity issues and thereupon, restructure of liabilities was done and similarly short renewal of credit facilities was also made, however, the Companies had defaulted its interest servicing and repayment obligations to member banks and hence, the Companies were classified as Non Performing Asset (NPA) and the loans were recalled and notices were issued for invoking the personal guarantees of Promoters/Guarantors of the Companies and subsequently, the Companies were also liquidated.
(iii) Subsequently, Forensic Auditors were appointed to carry out Transaction Audit and they had observed certain unusual indicators/irregularities related to different transactions in their Report as under:-
(a) Several crores of rupees were given as capital advances to potentially related parties.
(b) Majority of the trading transactions were executed with the potentially related parties with inadequate documentation, marginal/no collection, setting off balances through various adjustments and issuing of unwarranted payments.
(c) Entered into fictitious transactions with parties related amongst themselves.
(iv) On receipt of the Forensic Reports, the commission of fraud/misappropriation by the Companies and diversion of public funds came to light and it was exposed that the Companies were fraud ones and thereupon, the Complaints came to be lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation alleging that the aggregate amount of fraud comes to Rs.1083,14,35,709/- in respect of Surana Industries Limited, Rs.1495.76 crores in respect of Surana Power Limited and Rs.2930 crores in respect of Surana Corporation Limited.
(v) Subsequently, the respondent had lodged the Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIR) and issued summons on 12.2.2021 to the petitioner being the Designated Partner of Bell Tower Enterprises LLP to appear for enquiry. The petitioner had submitted his replies on 16.2.2021 and 22.2.2021. Second summon was also issued by the respondent on 14.2.2022 to which, the petitioner had replied on 16.2.2022. After exchange of such communications, the petitioner came to be arrested on 12.7.2022 and remanded to judicial custody on 13.7.2022.
(vi) The respondent had filed Crl.M.p.No.12223 of 2022 seeking custody of the petitioner and the petitioner had filed Crl.M.P.No.12116 of 2022 seeking bail before the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court under PMLA 2002).
(vii) The Special Court had granted 48 hours custody to the respondent by its order dated 18.7.2022 and dismissed the bail petition by order
Masroor vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another (2009) 14 SCC 286
Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others vs. Union of India and others (2022) SCC OnLine SC 929
The court emphasized the importance of balancing personal liberty with the interest of society and considered the legal principle of mens rea in the context of the petitioner's alleged involvement in....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of the existence of proceeds of crime for the commission of an offence of money laundering under the Prevention of Money Launderin....
Bail – Right of personal liberty and individual freedom which is probably the most cherished, is not in any manner, arbitrarily to be taken away from anybody even temporarily without following proced....
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of broad probabilities and prima facie determination in granting bail under PMLA, without converting the bail stage into a mini tri....
The court emphasized that in economic offences under the PMLA, bail is not granted unless the accused proves they are not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
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.