2024 (1) TMI 88 - HC - Money Laundering

Regular bail denied in money laundering case involving credit facility misappropriation and fund siphoning under Section 45 PMLA

The Madras HC dismissed the petitioner's regular bail application in a money laundering case involving misappropriation of credit facilities and siphoning ... Power to remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Right to speedy trial - House arrest as a form of judicial custody - Distinction between an incomplete investigation and further investigation after filing of a complaintPower to remand under Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Right to speedy trial - Whether remand cannot be extended unless reasons are recorded under Section 309 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT: - Section 309 concerns the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings to ensure trials proceed expeditiously and provides that adjournments beyond the following day require reasons to be recorded. Section 309(2) authorises postponement or adjournment for reasons to be recorded and permits remand of an accused if in custody, subject to provisos including a limit of fifteen days for magistrates. The Court held that Section 309 does not mandatorily require that every extension of remand be supported by a separate reason entry beyond what the provision itself contemplates; its object is to ensure speedy trial and regulate adjournments rather than to render every remand-extension legally infirm for want of distinct reasons. Allegations of undue custody or delay arising from non day-to-day trial are matters to be adjudicated in bail applications where factors including the magnitude of the offences and statutory twin conditions under Section 45 PMLA will be considered. On the facts, the Trial Court's remand-extension orders were held to be in accordance with law and not vitiated for want of reasons as contended by the petitioner. [Paras 20, 21, 22, 23]The challenge to remand-extension orders under Section 309 Cr.P.C. is rejected; the Trial Court's orders sustaining remand are in accordance with law and are not interfered with.House arrest as a form of judicial custody - Right to speedy trial - Whether the petitioner should be released to house arrest to enable access to prosecution documents and to defend the trial effectively - HELD THAT: - Although the Supreme Court has recognised that in extraordinary cases house arrest may constitute judicial custody, the petitioner has not demonstrated extraordinary circumstances warranting house arrest. The Court nevertheless directed that the prosecution ensure that all documents relied upon are furnished to the petitioner and that he be given access to those materials even while in prison so as to vindicate his right to defend his case. [Paras 24]Request for house arrest is refused; respondent is directed to furnish prosecution documents and ensure the petitioner's access to them while in custody.Statutory bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure - Distinction between an incomplete investigation and further investigation after filing of a complaint - Twin conditions under Section 45 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act - Whether the petitioner is entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground that investigation is not complete because the Enforcement Directorate seeks to continue further investigation after filing the complaint - HELD THAT: - The Court distinguished a genuinely incomplete investigation from a situation where a complaint has been filed on the basis of materials sufficient to proceed and further investigation is being pursued to identify additional proceeds of crime. The language of the complaints and the prosecution's stand indicated that the complaint and materials filed disclose the offences and permit commencement of trial; further investigation related to unearthing additional proceeds does not render the complaint incomplete for purposes of Section 167(2). The Delhi High Court decision relied upon by the petitioner concerned a materially incomplete final report and is factually distinguishable. Given the prosecution's identification of a portion of proceeds sufficient to prove charge and its intention to proceed with trial on the available materials, the petitioner was not entitled to statutory bail under Section 167(2). [Paras 27, 28, 29, 30, 31]Petitioner's claim to statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on the ground of incomplete investigation is rejected and the revisions challenging denial of such bail are dismissed.Final Conclusion: All Criminal Revision petitions are dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within six months from receipt of a copy of this order; respondent to furnish prosecution documents and ensure the petitioner's access to them while in custody to protect his right to a fair trial. Issues Involved:1. Extension of remand under Section 309 of Cr.P.C.2. Entitlement to statutory bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.3. Request for house arrest to access documents.Summary:Extension of Remand under Section 309 of Cr.P.C.The petitioner challenged the orders extending his remand, arguing that under Section 309 of Cr.P.C., remand cannot be extended without recording reasons, violating his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. The court found this argument contrary to the plain language of Section 309, which deals with the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings to ensure a speedy trial. The court concluded that remand extensions do not require reasons every time the trial is postponed and upheld the trial court's orders as lawful.Entitlement to Statutory Bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C.The petitioner argued that he is entitled to statutory bail since the respondent admitted that the investigation is ongoing. The court differentiated between an incomplete investigation and a completed investigation with ongoing further investigation. It held that the complaints filed were not based on an incomplete investigation; hence, the petitioner is not entitled to statutory bail. The court found no merit in the petitioner's reliance on the Delhi High Court judgment in Chitra Ramakrishna's case, as it dealt with an incomplete Final Report.Request for House Arrest to Access DocumentsThe petitioner requested house arrest to access voluminous documents for his defense. The court denied this request, stating that no extraordinary circumstances were shown to warrant house arrest. However, the court directed the respondent to ensure that all documents relied upon by the prosecution are furnished to the petitioner and accessible even if he is in prison.Conclusion:All Criminal Revision Cases (Crl.RC.Nos.890, 975, 976, 1026, 1029, and 1030/2023) were dismissed. The court directed the Trial Court to complete the trial within six months, recognizing the petitioner's constitutional right to a speedy trial.