6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court, it appears that
what is weighed with the High Court is that
chargesheet has been filed against respective
respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the
investigation is completed. However, the High
Court has failed to notice and appreciate that
the investigation with respect to the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002
by the Enforcement Directorate is still going
on. Merely because, for the predicated
offences the chargesheet might have been
filed it cannot be a ground to release the
accused on bail in connection with the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.
Investigation for the predicated offences and
the investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act are different and distinct.
Therefore, the High Court has taken into
consideration the irrelevant consideration.
The investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act, 2002 is till going on.
7. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has
neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of
the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the
seriousness of the offences alleged against
accused for the scheduled offences under the
PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at
all considered the fact that the investigation
by the Enforcement Directorate for the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002
is still going on and therefore, the impugned
orders passed by the High Court enlarging
respective respondent No. 1 on bail are
unsustainable and the matters are required
to be remitted back to the High Court for
afresh decision on the bail applications after
taking into consideration the observations
made hereinabove.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1401 OF 2023
Directorate of Enforcement Vs Aditya Tripathi
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1402 OF 2023
Author: M.R. SHAH, J.
MAY 12, 2023
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by
the High Court for the State of Telangana at
Hyderabad in Criminal Petition Nos.
1146/2021 and 1147/2021, by which, the
High Court has allowed the said bail
applications and has directed to enlarge
respective respondent No. 1 on bail in
connection with the offences under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as the PML Act, 2002)
investigated by the Enforcement Directorate,
Hyderabad in F. No. ECIR/HYZO/36/2020 on
the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad, the Directorate of Enforcement
has preferred the present appeals.
2. That an FIR No. 12/2019 dated 10.04.2019
was registered by the Economic Offences
Wing, Bhopal, naming about 20
persons/companies as accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 120-B,
Page 2 of 16
420, 468 and 471 of IPC, Section 66 of the
Information Technology Act, 2000 and
Section 7(c) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was
found in the preliminary enquiry that e-
Tender Nos. 91,93, and 94 for total works
amounting to Rs. 1769.00 crores of Madhya
Pradesh Water Corporation were tempered to
change the price bid of M/s GVPR Engineers
Limited, M/s The Indian Hume Pipe Company
Limited and M/s IMC (sic) Project India
Limited to make them the lowest bidders.
Subsequent to the registration of the FIR,
Economic Offences Wing, Bhopal conducted
investigation and filed the chargesheet before
the competent court on 04.07.2019. That on
study of chargesheet, it was found that the
accused have also committed the offences
Page 3 of 16
under the PML Act, 2002 as the offences for
which they were chargesheeted, namely,
Sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC and
Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the PC
Act, are also scheduled offences and
therefore, the Enforcement Directorate,
Hyderabad had initiated money laundering
investigation in the F. No.
ECIR/HYZO/36/2020. That respective
respondent No. 1 herein in respective appeals
were arrested on 19.01.2021, therefore, they
filed the present bail applications before the
High Court to enlarge them on bail in
connection with the aforesaid
investigation/case being investigated by the
Enforcement Directorate. By the impugned
orders, the High Court has directed to enlarge
respondent No. 1 in respective appeals on
Page 4 of 16
bail. The impugned orders passed by the
High Court enlarging respondent No. 1 in
respective appeals on bail in the case being
investigated by the Enforcement Directorate,
Hyderabad, are the subject matters of present
appeals.
3. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned ASG, has appeared
on behalf of the appellant – Enforcement
Directorate and Shri Rakesh Khanna and
Shri Aman Lekhi, learned Senior Advocates
have appeared on behalf of respective
respondent No. 1.
3.1 Shri Nataraj, learned ASG appearing on
behalf of the Enforcement Directorate has
submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the case the High Court has
seriously erred in enlarging respective
respondent No. 1 – accused on bail. It is
Page 5 of 16
submitted that while enlarging respective
respondent No. 1 – accused on bail the High
Court has not properly appreciated Section
45 of the PML Act, 2002.
3.2 It is further submitted that the High Court
has not properly appreciated and/or
considered the seriousness of the offences
which are scheduled offences under the PML
Act, 2002.
3.3 It is submitted that the High Court has
enlarged respective respondent No. 1 on bail
solely on the ground that the investigation
has been completed and the chargesheet has
been filed. It is submitted that however, the
High Court has not properly appreciated the
fact that the investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate is still going on and therefore, it is
Page 6 of 16
wrong to say that the investigation has been
completed.
4. While opposing the present appeals, learned
Senior Advocate(s) appearing on behalf of
respective respondent No. 1 have vehemently
submitted that in the facts and
circumstances of the case, the High Court
has not committed any error in directing to
enlarge the accused on bail.
4.1 It is submitted that in the present case so far
as the impugned FIR is concerned i.e., for the
predicated offences others accused have been
acquitted/discharged.
4.2 It is further submitted that as the
investigation is over and the chargesheet has
been filed, the High Court has rightly
enlarged the accused – respective respondent
No. 1 on bail. It is submitted that as the
Page 7 of 16
accused are on bail since March, 2021, the
impugned orders passed by the High Court
may not be interfered by this Court at this
stage.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respective parties at length.
6. At the outset, it is required to be noted that
respective respondent No. 1 – accused are
facing the investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences and for
the offences of money laundering under
Section 3 of the PML Act punishable under
Section 4 of the said Act. An
enquiry/investigation is still going on by the
Enforcement Directorate for the scheduled
offences in connection with FIR No. 12/2019.
Once, the enquiry/investigation against
respective respondent No. 1 is going on for the
Page 8 of 16
offences under the PML Act, 2002, the rigour
of Section 45 of the PML Act, 2002 is required
to be considered. Section 45 of the PML Act,
2002 reads as under: -
“45. Offences to be cognizable and
non-bailable.—
(1) [Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no
person accused of an offence [under
this Act] shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless—]
(i) the Public Prosecutor has
been given an opportunity to
oppose the application for
such release; and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor
opposes the application, the
court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for
believing that he is not guilty
of such offence and that he is
not likely to commit any
offence while on bail:
Provided that a person, who, is
under the age of sixteen years, or is
a woman or is sick or infirm [or is
accused either on his own or along
Page 9 of 16
with other co-accused of moneylaundering
a sum of less than one
crore rupees], may be released on
bail, if the Special Court so directs:
Provided further that the
Special Court shall not take
cognizance of any offence
punishable under Section 4 except
upon a complaint in writing made
by—
(i) the Director; or
(ii) any officer of the Central
Government or a State
Government authorised in
writing in this behalf by the
Central Government by a
general or special order made in
this behalf by that Government.
[(1-A) Notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any
other provision of this Act, no police
officer shall investigate into an
offence under this Act unless
specifically authorised, by the
Central Government by a general or
special order, and, subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed.]
(2) The limitation on granting of
bail specified in [* * *] sub-section
(1) is in addition to the limitations
under the Code of Criminal
Page 10 of 16
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any
other law for the time being in force
on granting of bail.”
By the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
and while granting bail, the High Court has
not considered the rigour of Section 45 of the
PML Act, 2002.
6.1 Even otherwise, the High Court has not at all
considered the nature of allegations and
seriousness of the offences alleged of money
laundering and the offences under the PML
Act, 2002. Looking to the nature of
allegations, it can be said that the same can
be said to be very serious allegations of
money laundering which are required to be
investigated thoroughly.
6.2 Now so far as the submissions on behalf of
the respective respondent No. 1 that
respective respondent No. 1 were not named
in the FIR with respect to the scheduled
offence(s) and/or that all the other accused
are discharged/acquitted in so far as the
predicated offences are concerned, merely
because other accused are
acquitted/discharged, it cannot be a ground
not to continue the investigation in respect of
respective respondent No. 1. An
enquiry/investigation is going on against
respective respondent No. 1 with respect to
the scheduled offences. Therefore, the
enquiry/investigation for the scheduled
offences itself is sufficient at this stage.
6.3 From the impugned judgment(s) and order(s)
passed by the High Court, it appears that
what is weighed with the High Court is that
chargesheet has been filed against respective
respondent No. 1 – accused and therefore, the
investigation is completed. However, the High
Court has failed to notice and appreciate that
the investigation with respect to the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002
by the Enforcement Directorate is still going
on. Merely because, for the predicated
offences the chargesheet might have been
filed it cannot be a ground to release the
accused on bail in connection with the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002.
Investigation for the predicated offences and
the investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act are different and distinct.
Therefore, the High Court has taken into
consideration the irrelevant consideration.
The investigation by the Enforcement
Directorate for the scheduled offences under
the PML Act, 2002 is till going on.
7. As observed hereinabove, the High Court has
neither considered the rigour of Section 45 of
the PML Act, 2002 nor has considered the
seriousness of the offences alleged against
accused for the scheduled offences under the
PML Act, 2002 and the High Court has not at
all considered the fact that the investigation
by the Enforcement Directorate for the
scheduled offences under the PML Act, 2002
is still going on and therefore, the impugned
orders passed by the High Court enlarging
respective respondent No. 1 on bail are
unsustainable and the matters are required
to be remitted back to the High Court for
afresh decision on the bail applications after
taking into consideration the observations
made hereinabove.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, both these appeals succeed. The
impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by
the High Court in Criminal Petition Nos.
1146/2021 and 1147/2021 enlarging
respective respondent No. 1 – accused in
respective appeals on bail are hereby quashed
and set aside. That respective respondent No.
1 now to surrender before the competent
court having jurisdiction or before the
concerned jail authority within a period of
one week from today. The matters are
remitted back to the High Court to consider
the bail applications afresh in light of the
observations made hereinabove and after
respective respondent No. 1 surrenders
within a period of one week as ordered above.
Present appeals are accordingly allowed to the
aforesaid extent.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
MAY 12, 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment