TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 1146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Special Case No.1 of 2014. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the present applicant was working as the Assistant Manager in Union Bank of India till 2009. That on 5.2.2009, Nikesh T. Shah, proprietor of Skand Industries along with Santosh S. Bhosale, proprietor of M/s. Shree Imports visited Union Bank of India and submitted six pay-in-slips before the Cashier. That the pay-in-slips showed that the said persons wanted to deposit Rs. 10,87,34,700/- in the account of Manibhadra Trading Co. and Rs. 5,06,000/- in the account of Accure Impex Pvt.Ltd. which they were operating in Union Bank of India. It is pertinent to note that no cash was actually deposited. The Cashier had stamped the pay-in-slips as cash received although no cash wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....56,000/-. Rs. 5 lakhs was given to Nikesh in cash by the cashier Vichare. The alleged misappropriation had come to light on 6.2.2009 and hence the Branch Manager of Union Bank of India had requested the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank not to disburse/release the amounts which were to be released pursuant to RTGS transfer of Rs. 10 crores forwarded by Nariman Point Branch on 5.2.2009 in the account of P.K. Financial Services. He had also sent request letters to that effect. HDFC Bank refused to oblige the request of the Branch Manager and hence Union Bank of India was constrained to approach the Hon'ble High Court by way of a suit, being Suit No.718 of 2009. On 4.10.2010, the Hon'ble High Court had granted interim relief pursuant to whic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and others had sufficient notice that they would be prosecuted under the provisions of the said Act. 6. On 2.8.2014, the applicant received summons from the Designated Court directing him to appear before the Court on 6.8.2014. Pursuant to the said summons, the applicant appeared before the Court and was taken into custody. Hence, this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. 7. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that under the provisions of PMLA 2002 were apparent on the face of the record at the time of filing Special Case No.91 of 2009. However, there was no formal complaint and that the present applicant has been arrested in PMLA Special Case No.1 of 2014. He had co-operated with the investigating agency during the peri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ence punishable under section 4 except upon a complaint in writing made by - (i) the Director; or (ii) any officer of the Central Government or State Government authorised in writing in this behalf by the Central Government by a general or a special order made in this behalf by that Government." In the present case, the first condition has been satisfied as the respondent has been not only given an opportunity to oppose the application seeking release but has been permitted to address on merits of the case. As far as the second condition is concerned, at present it would not be necessary to actually record that finding as to whether the applicant would be guilty or not as the entire case rests upon documentary evidence ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ail in economic offences. `Reason to believe' is an expression of state of mind which has to be drawn by `inference' and the Court cannot record such a finding at the pre-trial stage. It would cause prejudice to prosecution or defence . Hence, this Court is only considering the issue of `further incarceration' pending trial which cannot be completed in near future. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has placed reliance upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. AIR 2005 SC 2277. In that case, the said applicant was being tried under the provisions of MCOC Act. In the present case, the applicant is not being tried only under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch he is alleged to have committed the offence." 12. Taking into consideration that the applicant has been in custody for almost three months and also co-operated with the investigating agency for the past five years, the inordinate delay in filing the formal complaint is not explained by the prosecution. Hence, the applicant would be entitled to be enlarged on bail. 13. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature. That the co-accused shall not claim parity with the present applicant and their application needs to be decided on its own merits. The Designated Court shall not be influenced by the observations made hereinabove as they pertain to consideration of bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. O....