2020 Supreme(Ori) 128
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Mohammad Arif – Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement, Govt. of India – Respondent
BLAPL No. 2607 of 2020
Decided on : 13-07-2020
For the Appellant :M/s. Amar Patnaik, V. Narasingh, B. Mohapatra, S.K. Jena, B.B. Choudhury and Subhalaxmi Devi, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Gopal Agarwal, Advocate
The court's decision highlighted the seriousness of money laundering offences, the burden of proof on the accused, and the discretion of the court in granting bail.
Headnote:
PMLA - Bail Application - Sections 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978; Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the involvement of the petitioner in a fraudulent money circulation scheme under Sections 4, 5, 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and the subsequent money laundering under The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PML Act). The court highlighted the modus operandi of the accused in siphoning off funds and layering through shell companies, and the role of the petitioner in laundering the proceeds of crime.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail in connection with a case involving a fraudulent money circulation scheme and subsequent money laundering. The investigation revealed the involvement of the petitioner in siphoning off funds and layering through shell companies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found prima facie evidence of the petitioner's involvement in the money laundering scheme and rejected the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner's non-cooperation with the prosecution, and the possibility of flight risk and tampering with evidence.
Issues: The issues included the involvement of the petitioner in the fraudulent scheme and money laundering, the admissibility of a supplementary complaint, and the retrospective application of penal laws.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner's non-cooperation with the prosecution, and the possibility of flight risk and tampering with evidence as grounds for rejecting the bail application.
Final Decision: The bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and the connected I.A. were dismissed, with the court clarifying that the observations shall not influence the fair trial before the Trial Court.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
The petitioner has approached this court seeking bail in connection with Complaint Case C.M.C. (PMLA) No. 47 of 2017 arising out of ECIR/07/2009/BBSR pending before the Ld. Sessions Judge, Khorda-cum-Special Court under PMLA, Khorda at Bhubaneswar under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. A brief factual background of the case demonstrates that a case was registered at Sahadevkhunta Police Station, District-Balasore, Odisha bearing FIR No. 118/2009 dated 17/07/2009 U/s.406/420/468/471/34, I.P.C. and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 on the basis of a written complaint dated 17/07/2009 lodged by one Niranjan Sahoo, alleging that he had been cheated and defrauded by alluring to invest Rs. 10,000/- in the attractive investment Scheme of M/s. Fine Indisales Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred as to M/s. “FIPL”). It is further alleged that he has been the receiving end of such deceptive Scheme once again and deposited of Rs. 40,000/- therein. He also introduced 20 other persons to invest in such schemes. But he had neither received the said financial product nor the product voucher as per the agreement with M/s. FIPL and the said M/s. FIPL collected huge amounts of money from the public and ultimately duped huge amount from innocent public by giving false assurance of high return for their deposit of money. Thus, he requested for an investigation regarding the money circulation scheme which culminated into registration of a case by the said police station. Subsequently, the investigation of the aforesaid P.S. Case No. 118/2009 dt. 17.07.2009 got transferred to CB, CID of Odisha as per order No. 189/CID dated 18.07.2009 by registering CB, CID Case No. 17 dated 18.07.2009 against officials of M/s. FIPL under the aforesaid sections.
3. On 12.12.2012, this Court while hearing W.P.(C) No. 7693/20111, directed that looking at the massive financial impact in the case, the investigation of the aforesaid case be handed over to the CBI. In compliance with the said direction, the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as “CBI”) took over the investigation. Accordingly, CBI Economic Offence Wing, Kolkata registered a case vide No.-RC 02/E/2013-KOL on 01.03.2013 after duly taking over the FIR of CB, CID, Odisha Case No. 17/2009 registered U/s. 406/420/468/471/34 of IPC, read with Secs. 4, 5 & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 against the officials of the said FIPL.
4. Case corresponding to the original FIR was also recorded by the Enforcement Directorate (ECIR/07/2009/BBSR dated 18.11.2009) on the basis of the aforesaid P.S. Case No. 118 dated 17.07.2009 as the said FIR revealed the commission of certain Scheduled Offences under PML Act, 2002 and investigation was taken up under various provisions of The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as “PML Act”).
5. The investigation, thus far, has revealed that M/s. FIPL had floated a fraudulent scheme of their company on 28.08.2008 inviting deposits from public for the said scheme deceitfully and advertised as a “Multi-level marketing scheme” with a terminal ulterior motive to siphon off the funds collected from public. The advertised scheme of FIPL, ex-facie appears to be a bodacious Ponzi scheme, inducing the susceptible depositors by way of misrepresentation, promising immediate refund in case of any default and timely payment of return on the part of FIPL. Investigation, therefore, has prima facie established that the accused persons connected with M/s. FIPL not only criminally conspired and cheated the depositors but also lured them into the scheme with a rogue mindset. This sort of an economic demonology at the hands of M/s. FIPL, its Directors and Shareholders has been instrumental in making a windfall gain of about Rs. 703