Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 18531
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Swarana Kanta Sharma, J
AMIT KATYAL – Appellant
Versus
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT – Respondent
W.P.(CRL) 2981/2023 & CRL.M.A. 27792/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, Senior Advocate, Ms. Bina Gupta, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Mr. Bakul Jain, Ms. Sheena, Ms. Akasha Saini, Mr. Shiv Kumar Gupta, Mr. Naman Agarwal
For the Respondents: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Special Counsel for ED, Mr. Vivek Gurnani, Mr. Baibhav, Mr. Kartik Sabharwal, Mr. Ankur Tiwari
The court held that non-accused status in a predicate offence does not preclude PMLA proceedings against a petitioner being summoned for investigation.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 - Section 50 - Petition filed seeking quashing of Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) and stay on coercive action - The petitioner, linked to the Job for Land Scam, sought relief arguing lack of predicate offence against him - The court reiterated that a person need not be named as an accused in a scheduled offence for PMLA proceedings to be initiated - Petition dismissed citing the ongoing investigation and the petitioner's prior cooperation. (Paras 1, 4, 9, 25, 44)
(B) Writ petition - Prematurity of quashing petition - High Court emphasized that quashing does not preclude the investigative process, nor does it provide for anticipatory bail-related protections when under inquiry. (Paras 39, 46)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under article 226. (Para 1) |
| 2. background of petitioner's business operations. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. ongoing investigations and legal context. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. implicating actions of the directorate. (Para 8) |
| 5. petitioner's arguments against ecir. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. summons issued under pmla. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 7. legal analysis of summons. (Para 18) |
| 8. jurisdictional prerogatives under pmla. (Para 19 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. continuing investigations. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 10. quashing ecir petitions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 30) |
| 11. witness vs. accused distinction. (Para 32) |
| 12. no coercive measures against the petitioner. (Para 39 , 42) |
| 13. final dismissal of the petition. (Para 44 , 46 , 47) |
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.
1. By way of present writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‗ Cr.P.C .‘), the petitioner seeks grant of following reliefs:
―i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari of any Writ, Order or Direction of like nature directing the calling of records in relation to ECIR No. 31/2022 and direct quashing of the proceedings against the Petitioner in the impugned ECIR as an accused; and/or
ii. Issue a Writ of Prohibition of any Writ, Order or Direction of like nature restraining the Respondent from taking any coercive action against the Petitioner in respect of the ECIR No. 31/2022 including conducting further investigation & quashing summon dated 06.10.2023 qua the Petitioner; and/or
iii. Issue a Writ of Declaration of any Writ, Order or Direction for quashing of the Enforcement Directorate case against the petitioner qua ECIR No. 31/2022 by quashing the impugned ECIR, summon dated 06.10.2023 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom; and
iv. Pass any other order or directions that this Hon‘ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the petitioner.
THE CASE OF PETITIONER
2. The background facts, as disclosed in the petition, are that the family of petitioner owns Krrish group of companies and has been in business of Breweries and Distilleries since the year 1983, and in the real estate business also since 2008. It is stated that the company namely M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd. (previously known as Iceberg Consultants Limited) was incorporated in the year 1994 and the petitioner had become its whole-time director from the date of its incorporation. The said company, for the purpose of setting up a Distillery and Brewery plant had purchased a land of approximately 12 acres in Bihta, Bihar and the petitioner had then set up a plant for Distillery in Bihar under the company M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd. It is stated that since the petitioner‘s distillery was operating in Bihar, the petitioner had started purchasing small chunks of lands/plots in Bihar for the purpose of expansion or storage, in the name of several companies such as M/s In-Shape Health & Resorts Pvt. Ltd., M/s Iceberg Hotel & Resorts Ltd., and M/s AK Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. during the years 2006-2011. It is stated that one of the properties ad-measuring 9527 sq. ft. purchased by M/s AK Infosystem Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2007, situated in Rupaspur, Danapur, Patna, Bihar, was purchased for a sale consideration of Rs.10,83,000/-, paid in cash and the owner of the said land Sh. Hazari Rai was relative of one of the recruits in Group-D in Railway Department.
3. It is stated that the distillery at Bihar owned by M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd. was sold to American Beer company namely M/s Molson Coors International. It is stated that after selling the brewery, the petitioner was in a process to wind up his business and properties in Bihar. It is stated that M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd. was also sold to M/s Molson Coors International by means of transfer of complete shareholding. Later, the petitioner had also resigned from the Directorship of M/s Iceberg Industries Ltd. and had completely exited the company. It is submitted that the compan
