Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Mahammed Naseer - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Director, Enforcement Directorate, Government of India, Kolkata - Respondent
BLAPL No. 7356 of 2023
Decided On : 20-11-2023
PMLA - Money Laundering - Sections 3 of PMLA, Sections 406/420/468/471/34 of IPC, Sections 4, 5, 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 - The court analyzed the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, particularly Section 45, which outlines the conditions for granting bail to those accused of money laundering. The court emphasized the necessity for the prosecution to demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court also considered the lack of prima facie evidence against the petitioner, his cooperation with the investigation, and his status as a blind person, ultimately leading to the decision to grant bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was implicated in a case involving alleged money laundering connected to a Multi Level Marketing Scheme operated by M/s. Fine Indi Sales Pvt. Ltd. The informant claimed to have invested significant sums without receiving promised products or returns, leading to allegations of fraud and violations of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation, was never arrested during the investigation, and there was insufficient evidence to establish his involvement in the alleged crime. The court noted that the business model was transparent and that the petitioner had no role in any fraudulent activities.
Issues: Whether the petitioner should be granted bail under the provisions of the PMLA, considering the allegations against him and the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conditions for granting bail under Section 45 of the PMLA were not met by the prosecution, as there were no reasonable grounds to believe the petitioner was guilty or likely to commit further offenses. The court emphasized the importance of examining the case based on available material rather than assumptions.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner with specific conditions, including regular appearances in court and restrictions against committing further offenses or tampering with evidence.
JUDGMENT
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
ECIR No. | Dated | Sub-Zone | Case No. and Courts' Name | Sections |
07 | 18.11.2009 | Bhubaneswar | PMLA Case No.47 of 2017 pending in the court of learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar | Sections 406/ 420/ 468/ 471/ 34 of the I,.P.C. and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. |
1. This application is arising out of PMLA Case No.47 of 2017 arising out of ECIR No.7 of 2009, pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I., Bhubaneswar wherein the petitioner has been implicated and charge sheeted for commission of alleged offences punishable U/s.3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, in connection with CBI EOW P.S. Case No. PMLA Case No.47 of 2017 arising out of ECIR No.7 of 2009.
I. Factual Matrix of the Case:
2. The prosecution case as alleged in nutshell is that one Niranjan Sahu lodged the FIR alleging that in the month of September he deposited a sum of Rs.10,000/- in M/s. Fine Indi Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur (herein after referred to as M/s. FIPL) in their Multi Level Marketing Scheme (herein after referred to as MLM Scheme) towards product booking. One Somnath Panda had introduced the informant about the process of this business and also managed to induct him into this business. Accordingly with a hope to get benefit, the informant joined the business and also received online money receipt time to time, but has not received either the products or the product vouchers. It is also mentioned that as per his knowledge one Amiya Kumar Pani had started the business in Orissa and afterwards one Manmath Kumar Panda had sponsored one Srijukta Pitamber Raj of Balasore. After getting returns for three to four months the informant had made a top up of Rs.40,000. Till this date the informant has made to join around twenty people in this business and has given a deposit of Rs.5,00,000/-.
3. As per the Company Rules and Regulations so also online guidelines, after opening an account in ICICI Bank, the informant transferred money through cheques into Company account from his own account and after getting the Payment Verification Code no. through email, he made people to join the business online. Many people from far and near have made product bookings and are getting bonus. As some people have no Bank accounts in the aforesaid bank, the petitioner had deposited his money in his account and transferred the same to Company's account. As per Company system a person receives a sum of Rs.1000 per month if he makes a product booking of Rs. 10,000 and after deduction of TDS receives a sum of Rs.897 in core banking account. It is alleged that as per agreement of the Company, product or product voucher have not been supplied till date. The informant had joined the Company with a belief that it is a product based business, but instead of getting the products, the informant was getting money every month. On the basis of above allegation FIR was lodged as Sahadevkhunta P.S. Case No. 118 of 2009 against officials of M/s FIPL for commission of offences under section 406/420/468/471/34 of IPC and section 4/5/6 of Prize Chit and Money Circulations Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 and investigation started.
4. On the very next day, the said FIR no.118/09 registered on the complaint of Niranjan Sahu was transferred to the Crime Branch and FIR no.17/09 was registered at P.S. CB-CID u/s 406/420/468/471/34 IPC and Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Prize Chits & Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978.
5. In course of investigation of the aforesaid case, one Writ Petition was preferred by President of M/s All India Networks Welfare Trust, a registered trust of duped and gullible thousands and thousands of investors of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, with a prayer to protect the fund of investors. This Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition bearing WP(C) No.7693 of 2011 vide its order dtd.12.12.2012 was pleased to direct that the investigation of the case be handed over to CBI and that the Crime Bran
Bail – Court is only required to look at prima facie case and is not required to look into test of guilt – It is required to maintain delicate balance between judgment of acquittal and conviction and....
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....
The court granted bail under the PMLA, emphasizing the lack of sufficient evidence linking the applicant to money laundering, and highlighting the necessity for a predicate offence to substantiate ch....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the twin conditions under Section 45 of PMLA must be satisfied before granting bail in a money laundering case, and the accused's involvement ....
The main legal point established is the constitutional validity of Section 45(1) of the PML Act and the principle of granting bail in economic offences when the investigation is complete and the tria....
Order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind as to why applicant has been granted or denied privilege of bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
