TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court allows petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., finds lack of new evidence in PMLA case</h1> <h3>Giri Raj Sharma Versus U.O.I. Thru. Directorate of Enforcement</h3> Giri Raj Sharma Versus U.O.I. Thru. Directorate of Enforcement - TMI Issues Involved:1. Maintainability of the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.2. Legality of the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint.3. Application of Section 44 (1) (ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.4. Prima facie satisfaction for interim relief.Detailed Analysis:1. Maintainability of the Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.:The primary issue addressed was whether the petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. The petitioner argued that the High Court has discretionary power under Section 47 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, which supplements Section 65 of the Act and includes the provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petitioner cited several judgments from the Hon'ble Apex Court, including *State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal* and *Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate*, asserting that the inherent powers of the High Court can be invoked to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice. The court found that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. could be invoked in this case and thus, the petition is maintainable.2. Legality of the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint:The petitioner contended that the Supplementary Prosecution Complaint filed on 29.06.2020 was illegal and unwarranted, as it was based on statements recorded before the original complaint was filed on 30.06.2018. The petitioner argued that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) did not conduct an independent investigation and merely copied the findings of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The court noted that the ED should have presented new evidence in the supplementary complaint rather than relying on previously recorded statements. The court found that the supplementary complaint appeared to lack independent investigation and was not justified under the given circumstances.3. Application of Section 44 (1) (ii) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002:The court examined whether the supplementary complaint was filed in accordance with Section 44 (1) (ii) of the Act, which allows for further investigation to bring new evidence against any accused person. The court observed that the supplementary complaint did not present any new evidence but relied on statements recorded before the original complaint was filed. The court emphasized that further investigation should bring new evidence, which was not the case here. The court found that the trial court should have inquired about the new evidence before taking cognizance of the supplementary complaint.4. Prima Facie Satisfaction for Interim Relief:The court analyzed the prima facie satisfaction for granting interim relief by examining the prosecution complaints and the statements recorded under Section 50 of the Act. The court noted that the petitioner was not accused in the original prosecution complaint and was only included in the supplementary complaint based on previously recorded statements. The court found that the trial court did not apply its mind to the facts and law before summoning the petitioner. The court referred to the judgment in *Pepsi Foods Ltd. vs. Special Judicial Magistrate*, which mandates that the summoning order must reflect the application of mind by the magistrate. The court concluded that the matter required further consideration and granted interim relief by staying the operation and implementation of the impugned cognizance order dated 11.08.2021.Conclusion:The court found that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, the supplementary prosecution complaint lacked independent investigation and new evidence, and the trial court did not properly apply the law before summoning the petitioner. The court granted interim relief by staying the cognizance order and scheduled further hearings for detailed examination.
TaxTMI 