The main legal point established in the judgment is that the offences under PMLA are cognizable and non-bailable. The court also clarified the procedure for investigation under PMLA and the designation of the Special Court.

PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, J.

1. This order will govern the disposal of W.P. Nos. 4336/15, 4341/15, 4344/15, 4347/15, 4350/15, 5089/15, 5091/15 & 5625/15 since it is submitted by counsel for both the parties that the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical.

2. The writ petition Nos. 4336/15, 4341/15, 4344/15, 4347/15, 4350/15, 5089/15 & 5091/15 have been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceeding and investigation initiated under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (in short PMLA) whereas in W.P. No. 5625/2015 additionally writ of Habeas Corpus has been prayed.

3. In brief the case of petitioner in W.P. Nos.4336/15, 4341/15, 4344/15, 4347/15, 4350/15, 5089/15 & 5091/15 is that petitioner No. 1 is promoter and Group Chief Executive of Zoom Group of Companies, petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.2 had availed non-fund based bank guarantee facilities from Punjab National Bank and other banks and when number of lending banks increased, a consortium was formed under the leadership of Punjab National Bank as PNB consortium and credit limits were sanctioned to respondent No. 2. Due to the global economic meltdown of 2008, the bank guarantees were invoked by the bankers which brought the business activities of petitioner at a halt in November 2009. When the CDR process was going on at that stage complaints were filed by PNB and other banks, as a result of which five cases were registered under Section 120-B read with Section 420 of IPC against the petitioners being (1) RC BD1/2011/E/0005 at the instance of PNB; (2) RC BD1/2011/E/0009 by Syndicate Bank Mumbai; (3) RC BD1/2011/E/0010 at the instance of Canara Bank Mumbai; (4) RC BD1/2012/E/0007 at the instance of United Bank of India Mumbai & (5) RC BD1/2013/E/0001 by Union Bank of India Mumbai. In these cases, the investigation has been done by CBI and the charge sheets have been filed before the competent court and petitioner No.1 was enlarged on bail. The respondents thereafter based upon the above five FIRs registered by CBI have suo motu registered five cases i.e. (I) ECIR/INSZO/7/2013; (ii)ECIR/INSZO/8/2013; (iii) ECIR/INSZO/9/2013; (iv) ECIR/INSZO/10/2013; & (v) ECIR/INSZO/11/2013 under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 at Indore Sub Zonal Office.

4. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to quash the case registered and proceedings initiated against them under the PMLA and alternatively to restrain the respondents from subjecting the petitioner to coercive and custodial interrogation.

5. The respondents No. 1 & 2 had filed preliminary reply to the writ petition raising the objection that petitioner No. 1 is not cooperating and in-spite of issuance of summons on five occasions he had not appeared and a further plea has been raised that non-bailable warrants have been issued by the Court of competent jurisdiction against the petitioner No. 1 under PMLA and the petitioner No. 1 is not traceable and that the Special Court CBI has also issued the non bailable warrant which is pending for execution. It is stated in the reply that the CBI had registered the FIR against the petitioner and in the investigation by the CBI it was revealed that petitioners had misrepresented their financial health before the PNB consortium of banks by resorting to illegal activities and that the offence under Sections 120-B and 420 of IPC are scheduled offences under PMLA in respect of which CBI has already filed charge sheet against the petitioner. The material which has been gathered during investigation has been disclosed in the reply. It has further been stated that even after 1/6/2009 the funds were siphoned off and scheduled offences were committed, the details thereof have also been disclosed in the reply and a plea has been raised that the investigation is being rightly done under PMLA.

6. The petitioners have filed rejoinder as well as additional rejoinder and the respondents have filed the second preliminary reply on 20th August 2015 and