2015 (8) TMI 1439

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Since the appellant failed to pay the loan amount, proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI" Act) was taken by the Bank. The Central Bureau of Investigation initiated criminal proceedings against the appellant for cheating by registering First Information Report. 3. While so, the respondent issued summons to the appellant calling upon him to appear at 10.30 a,m. on 9 April 2015 in connection with the investigation initiated against him under the provisions of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. The appellant challenged the summons dated 25 March 2015 before the Writ Court primarily on the ground that the matter re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....legation that he cheated Bank of Baroda. The crime was registered pursuant to the complaint preferred by Bank of Baroda alleging that the appellant manipulated records and defrauded the Bank. The Central Bureau of Investigation after holding investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellant before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai. 8. The respondent taking into account the First Information Report lodged by the Central Bureau of Investigation against the appellant and the related final report, initiated proceedings by invoking the provisions of Prevention of Money- Laundering Act. 9. The summons issued to the appellant is challenged primarily on the ground that Section 420 of IPC was not a Scheduled offe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....whether the date of "laundering" is relevant or whether the term "laundering" would include any process or activity by which illicit money is being projected as "untainted". 13. The appellant has no case that the respondent is not a statutory authority conferred with the power of investigation under the provisions of Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002. His only objection is that the facts of the case would not attract the provisions of Prevention of Money- Laundering Act as it stood originally. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant placed heavy reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Ritesh Agarwal v. SEBI (2008) 8 SCC 205 in support of his contention that a penal statute will not have any retrospective effect or retrospect....