SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 833

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
V. Senthil Balaji – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.4011 of 2024 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3986 of 2024)
Decided on : 26-09-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. S Prabakaran, Sr. Adv. Mr. N R Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Sondhi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ma Gouthaman, Sr. Adv. Mr. N Bharanikumar, Adv. Mr. M Naveen, Adv. Mrs. Usha Prabakaran, Adv. Mr. Agilesh Kumar S, Adv. Ms. Misha Rohatgi, Adv. Mrs. Harini Ramsankar, Adv. Dr. Ram Sankar, Adv. For M/S. Ram Sankar & Co, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hussain, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Merusagar Samantaray, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivas, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Akshita Choubey, Adv. Ms. Yashvi Sharma, Adv. Mr. Vivek Gurnani,Adv. Mr. Abhipriya,Adv. Mr. Kartik Sabarwal,Adv. Mr. Vivek Gaurav,Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Mrs. Lakshmi Rao, Adv. Mr. Vishwaditya Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shiv Krishnamurti, Adv. Ms. Harsha Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Shreyas Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nath, Adv. Mr. S Gurukrishnakumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pranav Sachdeva, Adv. Mr. Jatin Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Neha Rathi, AOR Mr. Abhay Nair, Adv. Mr. Ashwin Kumar, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Bail – Offence of money laundering – If incarceration of an undertrial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, provisions may be exposed to vice of being violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India – Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) of PMLA to become instruments in hands of ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of trial of concluding within a reasonable time.

Headnote:

Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – Section 45 read with Sections 3 and 4 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 439 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 483] – Bail application – Offence of money laundering – Appellant was holding post of Transport Minister in Government of Tamil Nadu – There are more than 2000 accused in three scheduled offences and number of witnesses proposed to be examined exceeds 600 – Charges have not been framed in scheduled offences – Trial of scheduled offences will be a warrant case – On the issue of framing of charge or discharge, a large number of accused will have to be heard – Even in ideal conditions, possibility of trial of scheduled offences concluding even within a reasonable time of three to four years appears to be completely ruled out – Existence of proceeds of crime is a condition precedent for offence under Section 3 – Existence of a scheduled offence is sine qua non for alleging existence of proceeds of crime – Existence of proceeds of crime at the time of trial of offence under Section 3 of PMLA can be proved only if scheduled offence is established in prosecution of scheduled offence – Even if trial of case under PMLA proceeds, it cannot be finally decided unless trial of scheduled offences concludes – In facts of the case, there is no possibility of trial of scheduled offences commencing in near future – Considering gravity of offences in such statutes, expeditious disposal of trial is warranted considering higher threshold set for grant of bail – In our criminal jurisprudence “bail is rule, and jail is exception” – Stringent provisions regarding grant of bail, such as Section 45(1)(iii) of PMLA, cannot become a tool which can be used to incarcerate accused without trial for an unreasonably long time – If incarceration of an undertrial accused is continued for an unreasonably long time, provisions may be exposed to vice of being violative of Article 21 of Constitution of India – Constitutional Courts cannot allow provisions like Section 45(1)(ii) to become instruments in hands of ED to continue incarceration for a long time when there is no possibility of a trial of scheduled offence and PMLA offence concluding within reasonable time – Bail granted. (Paras 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 31)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28th February 2024 passed by Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Madras by which a bail application preferred by appellant under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been rejected. Bail application was filed in connection with an alleged offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

Findings of Court:

If appellant seeks adjournments on non-existing or frivolous grounds or creates hurdles in early disposal of the cases mentioned above, the bail granted to him shall be liable to be cancelled.

Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

FACTUAL ASPECTS

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal takes exception to the judgment and order dated 28th February 2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by which a bail application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been rejected. The bail application was filed in connection with an alleged offence under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short, ‘the PMLA’), which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.

3. Between 2011 and 2016, the appellant was holding the post of Transport Minister in the Government of Tamil Nadu. Broadly, the allegation against the appellant is that while discharging his duties as a Minister, in connivance with his personal assistant and his brother, he collected large amounts by promising job opportunities to several persons in various positions in the Transport Department. This led to the registering of three First Information Reports against the appellant and others. The said First Information Reports are FIR no.441 of 2015 dated 29th October 2015 (CC Nos. 22 and 24 of 2021), FIR No.298 of 2017 registered on 9th September 2017 (CC No.19 of 2020) and FIR no. 344 dated 13th August 2018 (CC No. 25 of 2020). In the first FIR, six charge sheets have been filed. More than 2000 accused have been named in the charge sheets. 550 witnesses have been named. In the case of the second FIR, there are 14 accused named in the chargesheet. In connection with this FIR, 24 witnesses have been cited. In the third FIR, 24 accused have been named in the charge sheet and 50 prosecution witnesses have been cited. The offences alleged in the aforementioned crimes are mainly under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has been invoked. These offences are scheduled offences within the meaning of Section 2(y) of the PMLA. Therefore, relying on the final reports filed in aforementioned scheduled offences, for an offence of money laundering under Section 3 of the PMLA punishable under Section 4, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (for short “ECIR”) bearing ECIR No. MDSZO/21/2021 on 29th July 2021.

4. The appellant was arrested on 14th June 2023 in connection with the said ECIR and was remanded to judicial custody. A complaint was filed for the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA Act, which is punishable under Section 4, on 12th August 2023. The appellant is the only accused named in the complaint. Cognizance has been taken based on the complaint by the Special Court under the PMLA. The scheduled offences cases have been transferred to the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional Special Court for Trial of Criminal Cases related to Elected Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assembly of Tamil Nadu (Special MPMLA Court), Chennai.

SUBMISSIONS

5. Learned senior counsel appearing in support of the appeal pointed out that in this case, ED is relying upon material collected by the investigating agencies investigating the scheduled offences. He submitted that five articles were allegedly seized during the search on 6th February 2020 in the appellant's premises. He invited our attention to the averments made in the complaint and, in particular, paragraph no.14.5, which deals with incriminating documents relating to money collected for providing jobs in the posts of Drivers, Conductors, Junior Tradesmen, Junior Engineers, Assistant Engineers, etc. He pointed out that the prosecution mainly relies upon a file named CS AC, allegedly found in the seized pen drive. The file allegedly gives details regarding the amounts received against each post. He submitted that the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory (TNFSL)’s analysis of the seized pen drive shows that the said file CS AC was not fo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top