2017 Supreme(SC) 1076

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, CJI., A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, JJ.
Rohit Tandon - Appellant
Versus
The Enforcement Directorate - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1878-1879 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 6896–6897 of 2017)
Decided On : 10-11-2017

IMPORTANT POINTS
Mens rea is an important factor in section 45. Grant of bail is dot be decided on broad probabilities.
Concealment, possession, acquisition or use of the demonetized notes by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting the same by bank drafts come within sweep of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence. Such offence would be within the meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4, being a case of money laundering.
Even though appeal against decision of a High Court in some case is dismissed, in view of different High Court taking contrary view there would be no legal impediment in examining correctness of the said judgment.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 439 r/w section 45, Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – High Court granting interim bail primarily on account of illness of appellant’s mother – This and other grounds cited by High Court will have no relevance for grant of regular bail unless threshold of rigours of section 45 are overcome. (Para 16)

       (b) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Bail – Factors to be considered – Whether accused possessed requisite mens rea – Materials to be weighed on broad probabilities – Possibility of the accused committing an offence under the Act after grant of bail to be weighed – Held, no error in courts below denting bail. (Para 19, 21)

       (2015) 16 SCC 1; (2014) 8 SCC 768; (2013) 7 SCC 439; (2011) 10 SCC 235; (2005) 5 SCC 294; (2012) 10 SCC 561 – Relied upon

       (2017) 5 SCC 218; (2012) 1 SCC 40 – Distinguished

       (c) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Sections 3 and 4 r/w section 2(1)(u), section 2(1)(v) and 2(1)(y) – ‘Proceeds of crime’, ‘property’ and ‘scheduled offence’ – Concealment, possession, acquisition or use of the demonetized notes by projecting or claiming it as untainted property and converting the same by bank drafts – Come within sweep of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence – Such offence would be within the meaning of Section 3 and punishable under Section 4, being a case of money laundering. (Para 23)

       2016 SCC Online P & H 3428 – Referred

       (d) Administration of justice – Examining correctness of a judgment – Appeal against decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gorav Kathuria dismissed – However, different High Court taking contrary view – No legal impediment in examining correctness of Gorav Kathuria. (Para 26)

       2016 SCC Online P & H 3428 – Referred

       (e) Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 – Offence of money laundering prima facie established – Antecedents of appellant indicating possibility of him committing further offence under the Act – Threshold stipulation predicated in section 45 not overcome – Courts below rightly denying bail to appellant. (Para 27, 28)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was arrested on 28th December, 2016 in connection with ECIR/18/DZII/ 2016/AD(RV) registered under Sections 3 & 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The said ECIR was registered on 26th December, 2016 as a sequel to FIR No.205/2016 dated 25th December, 2016 in relation to the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409, 468, 471, 188 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

       On demonetization the accused Raj Kumar Goel conspired with the bank manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Cannaught Place, namely Ashish Kumar and one Chartered Accountant, to earn huge profit by converting black money in the form of old currency notes into new currency notes.

       The accused were having bank accounts in the Naya Bazar branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank but the CA and Bank Manager Ashish asked accused Raj Kumar to deposit old currency notes in Cannaught Place branch of Kotak Mahindra Bank. The accused opened bank accounts in the name of Quality Trading Company, Swati Trading Company, Shree Ganesh Enterprises, R.K. International, Mahalxmi Industires, Virgo International and Sapna International on the basis of forged/false documents and deposited approx. Rs.25 Crore after the demonetization. The accused persons have also caused monetary loss to the Govt. of India and thereby Committed offences u/s 420, 406, 409, 467, 468, 471, 188, 120B IPC.

       The offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC are scheduled offences under the Act of 2002 and that from the available facts, a reasonable inference is drawn that the accused persons, the named and the unknown, have made illegal earnings arising out of the said criminal conspiracy which might have undergone the process of laundering and thereby an offence under Section 3 of the Act commission of offence under Section 3 punishable under Section 4 of the Act of 2002 was made out.

       The appellant’s bail application has been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge as also the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no error in denial of bail by courts below.

       Result: Appeals dismissed.