TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Laundering Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred as 'the PML Act') and the petitioners have been summoned by way of arrest warrants. It has been submitted that a strong prima facie case is made out in favour of the petitioners and the criminal revision petitions may be treated as part and parcel of the stay applications. It has further been submitted that if interim order is not granted, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss, therefore, the stay applications have been filed with following prayer :- "It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to stay order dated 12.07.2021 (Annexure-4) passed by learned Sessions Judge, PMLA 2002 / Special Judge CBI Cases No.3, Jaipur Metro-I in Criminal Complaint no. 3/2021 as also the arrest warrant issued against the petitioners. Any other interim order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners-applicants." According to the brief facts of the revision petitions, case of the petitioners is that a criminal complaint registered under Section 43, for contravention of Section 24 of Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... respondent in the case of Dr. Ashok Singhvi v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 6273/2020, decided on 06.07.2020) do not apply to the facts of this case. No arrest warrant could have been directly issued, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1. Hence, it is prayed in the stay applications that the impugned order and arrest warrant issued against the petitioners, may be stayed till disposal of the revision petitions. Following judgments have been relied upon in support of the contentions raised in favour of the petitioners :- (i) Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. 2021 SCC Online SC 615 (ii) Aman Preet Singh v. CBI through Director Criminal Appeal No. 929/2021 - SC - on 02.09.2021 (iii) Satender Kumar Antil v. C.B.I. and Anr. Special leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 5191/2021 - SC - on 28.07.2021 (iv) Rameshwar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors. S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16141/2017 - RHC - 21.05.2021 (v) Gaurav Sharma v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Writ Petition(s) Criminal No.(s) 189/2021 - SC - 06.05.2021 (vi) Shyam Sunder Singhvi v. Union of India Special Lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. A bare perusal of the order dated 12.07.2021 would reveal that learned court below has passed a reasoned and speaking order after due application of mind and found a prima facie case against the petitioners. Even the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kanti Bhadra Shah v. State of W.B. (2000) 1 SCC 722, has held that there is no requirement for the court below to write detailed orders at the stage of taking cognizance or issuing process. The revisional jurisdiction of the court under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is very limited. Further, it has been submitted that in this case the petitioners have approached this court directly without availing the statutory remedy available to them under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. Reliance placed upon the judgment of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (supra), is also misplaced as the said judgment has already been considered and distinguished by this court in Pooran Singh v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.474/2010 decided on 25.05.2010) and Shyam Sundar Singhvi v. Union of India (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.273/2019 decided on 24.01.2020). Otherwise also, under the provisions of Section 204 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been relied upon :- (i) Kanti Bhadra Shah and anr. v. State of W.B. (2000) 1 SCC 722 (ii) Himanshu @ Hemant Rajendra Bhatt v. State of Maharashtra 2015 (2) Mh. L.J. 84 (iii) Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and anr. (2012) 9 SCC 460 (iv) A.K. Subbaiah and ors. v. State of Karnataka and ors. (1987) 4 SCC 557 (v) Pooran Singh and anr. v. State of Rajasthan S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.474/2010 - RHC - 25.05.2010 (vi) Shyam Sundar Singhvi v. Union of India S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.273/201 - RHC - 24.01.2020 (vii) Shyam Sunder Singhvi v. UOI Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 792/2020 - SC - 10.02.2020 (viii) Babulal Verma and anr. v. Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai and anr. Criminal Application (APL) No.201/2021 (Bombay High Court) - 16.03.2021 (ix) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Ram Kishan Rohatgi & ors. (1983) 1 SCC 1 (x) Parbatbhai Aahir alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinghbhai Karmur and ors. v. State of Gujarat & anr. (2017) 9 SCC 641 (xi) Chilakamarthi Venkateshwarlu & anr. v. State of A.P. & anr. 2019 SCC OnLine SC 948 (xii) Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat & ors. (2018) 3 SCC 104 (xiii) State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porw....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he revision petitions and arrest warrants issued against the petitioners, may also be stayed. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this court. In Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under :- 14. In the present case when the appellant has joined the investigation, investigation has completed and he has been roped in after seven years of registration of the FIR we can think of no reason why at this stage he must be arrested before the chargesheet is taken on record. We may note that learned counsel for the appellant has already stated before us that on summons being issued the appellant will put the appearance before the trial court. 15. We accordingly set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal in terms aforesaid leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (supra). The relevant paras of the judgment read as under :- "51. The issuance of non-bailable warrants involves interference with personal liberty. Arrest and imprisonme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of nonbailable warrants should be avoided." Learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the prayer of the petitioners and submitted that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for offence punishable under the provisions of the PML Act, which is a serious economic offence and having regard to the nature of allegations, the learned court below has not committed any legal error in issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners for securing their attendance before the court, as the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in several cases that economic offences stand on a separate footing as they affect economic fabric of the Nation. Following observations have been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment rendered in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement (supra) :- "Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e offences are cognizable and non-bailable. The relevant portion of the provision reads as under :- "Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (1) [Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no person accused of an offence [under this Act] shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless--] (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release; and (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail: Provided that a person, who, is under the age of sixteen years, or is a woman or is sick or infirm, [or is accused either on his own or along with other co-accused of money-laundering a sum of less than one crore rupees], may be released on bail, if the Special Court so directs:" Therefore, learned court below was legally justified in issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioners as the offence for which cognizance has been taken against the petitioners, is an economic offence punishable under Section ....