IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Kirti Nath Tiwari - Applicant
Versus
Directorate of Enforcement Govt. of India, Assi. Dir. (PMLA) Somnath Choudhary Allahabad - Opposite Party
APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 482 NO. 4585 OF 2023.
Decided On : 03-07-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. valid summons and trial initiation (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. non-cooperation affects discretionary relief (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. credibility of evidence in the application (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. judicial discretion regarding quashing proceedings (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. inherent powers should not be arbitrarily exercised (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 6. definition of guilt in money laundering (Para 23 , 24) |
| 7. lack of grounds to interfere with trial court's order (Para 26 , 27) |
| 8. application rejected on merits (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
Subhash Vidyarthi, J.
Heard Sri S. P. Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Kuldeep Srivastava, the learned counsel for the respondent - Directorate of Enforcement (E.D.) and perused the record.
2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , the applicant has challenged validity of the summoning / cognizance order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Complaint No. 02/2018. The case has subsequently been transferred to the Court of Special Judge, C.B.I. - 6, Lucknow and the applicant has approached this Court when the trial Court has passed an order dated 19.04.2023 issuing non-bailable warrant against the applicant.
3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that on 29.05.2000, the Regional Manager, Ballia Gramin Bank, Ballia had sent a complaint against one Chandra Prakash Singh, Branch Manager, Ballia, Gramin Bank and some unknown persons, stating that when Chandra Prakash Singh was posted as Branch Manager during the period December 2008 to December 2009, he had embezzled public money for his personal gain and had misappropriated an amount of 1.60 Crores (approximately) and had thereby caused financial loss to the bank. In furtherance of the aforesaid complaint, a First Information Report bearing number RC 0062010A0017 under Sections 120-B, 409, 420 I.P.C. read with Sections 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was filed on 11.06.2010 against Chandra Prakash Singh and other unknown persons. The matter was investigated by CBI/ACB and on 30.06.2011, a charge-sheet was forwarded alleging commission of offences under Sections 120 B, 409, 477-A of the Indian Panel Code read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offence under Sections 409 and 477A IPC and Sections 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against several persons, including the applicant, alleging that Chandra Prakash Singh had caused wrongful loss of 56,47,592/- to the bank in criminal conspiracy with the applicant and certain other persons. The charge-sheet was submitted on 04.07.2011
4. Subsequently on 06.01.2012 the E.D. registered ECIR No.0/VSI.2012, investigated the matter, recorded statements of several persons, including the applicant, and filed a complaint against five persons, including the applicant, on 16.09.2017 in the Court of Special Judge, PMLA, Allahabad, which has subsequently been transferred to Lucknow. Regarding the applicant, it is stated in the complaint that he had posted the manifold in respect of loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843, that these manifolds had been issued from Dataha and were used to close the loan account Nos. 839, 841, 842 and 843 on 04.12.2008. No account opening forms and no KYC documents were available in respect of the aforesaid loan accounts. The complaint states that the applicant knowingly assisted co-accused Chandra Prakash Singh in his wrongdoings and allowed him to use his ID and password for fraudulent transactions of banking funds and thereby committed offence under section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'PMLA').
5. The trial court took cognizance of the case and summoned the accused persons by means of an order dated 02.04.2018.
6. There is absolutely no mention in the affidavit filed in support of the application regarding the conduct of the applicant after pass
DPP v. Humphrys 1977 AC 1 : (1976) 2 WLR 857 : (1976) 2 All ER 497 HL (E)
Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed (2008) 1 SCC 474.
Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal
The court emphasized that allegations lacking evidence do not justify the summoning of accused, highlighting the necessity of due diligence by the Magistrate under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Points of law : Powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482 of the Code are very wide and the very plenitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. Court must be careful to see....
A detailed appreciation of evidence is not required at the stage of summoning of an accused person.
The court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code should be exercised sparingly and with caution, and the power of quashing should be exercised only in the 'rarest of rare cases'. The c....
When an order under challenge is not interlocutory in nature and is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, then inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could not be exercised.
A second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if based on changed circumstances, despite a previous application being withdrawn.
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.