Court stays warrant under Prevention of Money Laundering Act due to lack of grounds

The court stayed the operation of the warrant issued under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act 2002, finding that the Designated Judge lacked sufficient grounds to issue a non-bailable warrant against the accused. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of issuing warrants, highlighting that unless the accused poses a serious threat, non-bailable warrants should be avoided to safeguard personal liberty. The matter was adjourned for further hearings, with direct service allowed to the parties involved.

---

---

Issues:
1. Legality and validity of the order of issue of warrant under P.M.L. Act 2002.
2. Prayers made in the complaint regarding money laundering offences.
3. Justification for issuing non-bailable warrant against the accused.
4. Compliance with the legal provisions and Supreme Court guidelines for issuing warrants.

Analysis:
1. The principal contention in this case revolves around the legality and validity of the order of issue of warrant passed by the Designated Judge under the Prevention of Money Laundering (P.M.L.) Act 2002. The petitioners raised concerns regarding the issuance of the warrant dated 29th October, 2012, by the Designated Judge.

2. The complaint lodged against the applicants pertains to the offence of money laundering under Section 4 of the P.M.L. Act 2002, read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The complainant, Deputy Director of Enforcement, Ministry of Finance, filed a supplementary complaint on 29th October, 2014, seeking cognizance of the offence, process against the accused, confiscation of properties involved in money laundering, and issuance of non-bailable warrant against the accused.

3. The petitioners argued that the Designated Judge should not have issued the warrant without sufficient grounds, especially when there was no indication that the accused would not comply with summons or had absconded. Reference was made to Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a Supreme Court decision highlighting the conditions necessitating the issuance of non-bailable warrants.

4. The Supreme Court's guidance emphasized that the power to issue warrants is discretionary and should be exercised judiciously, considering personal liberty and societal interests. It was noted that unless the accused is involved in a heinous crime or likely to tamper with evidence, evade the law, or harm someone, non-bailable warrants should be avoided. The court must balance the seriousness of the offence with the necessity for issuing a warrant.

5. The Designated Judge's order lacked findings indicating that the accused were likely to evade the law or had absconded, as required by Section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the court stayed the operation of the warrant pending further hearings, based on the petitioners' strong prima facie case. The matter was scheduled for the next hearing on 17th November, 2014, with direct service permitted to the concerned parties.

---