TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esis of the facts and circumstances, culminating in the registration of the subject FIR, lies in a criminal case registered at Police Station MRA Marg, Mumbai vide FIR No.216 dated 30.09.2013 under Sections 120-B, 409, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 477(A) IPC in respect of the economic offence, known as NSEL Scam, involving the amount of Rs. 5600 crore. Since, the offences under Sections 120-B, 467 & 471 IPC are included in Part A of the Schedule appended to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short "the PMLA"), the said case was forwarded to respondent No.2-Directorate for investigation and on the basis thereof, respondent No.2 registered ECIR No.14/2013. Vide Order No.11 of 2014 (Annexure P-3) as passed therein on 28.07.2014, several land parcels were provisionally attached and the said order was, subsequently, confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority vide the order dated 08.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) while observing that the said properties had been acquired by the petitioner in the names of his Companies, by using the proceeds of crime, trailed to his Company M/s A.R.K. Import Pvt. Ltd, as obtained by defrauding the bona-fide investors while using the NSEL (National Stock E....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... He has placed reliance upon the judgment handed down by the Division Bench of this Court in Seema Garg Vs. Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (Prevention of Money-Laundering Act) 2020(2) RCR (Criminal) 701, in support of his contentions. 6. Per-contra, learned Additional Solicitor General of India and learned Senior Panel counsel (UOI) for respondent No.2-Directorate have pointed out that it has clearly been mentioned in the concluding para of order Annexure P-4 that the same would continue during the pendency of the proceedings relating to any offence under the PMLA before the Court and would become final after an order of confiscation is passed and they have argued that the proceedings are, presently, continuing/pending in the Special Court at Mumbai and hence, the above-said order is still in force. 7. I find force in the arguments of learned Additional Solicitor General of India and learned Senior Panel counsel (UOI) for respondent No.2 because Section 8(3) of PMLA provides as under:- "(3) Where the Adjudicating Authority decides under sub-section (2) that any property is involved in money-laundering, he shall, by an order in writing, confirm the attac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ending and the appellants were neither arrayed as the accused in the FIR nor in the complaint filed before the Special Court whereas in the present case, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, the Charge-sheet has already been presented against the petitioner in the said criminal case registered by the Mumbai Police and the trial is pending before the competent Court at Mumbai. 10. Further, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if for the sake of arguments, respondent No.2-Directorate is presumed to be the owner of the properties under attachment, as allegedly sold by the petitioner vide the sale deeds in question, even then the sale of such properties by him to third persons does not constitute any offence under Sections 420 or 467, 465, 468, 471 IPC because the present FIR has not been got registered by the vendees of the said sale deeds who could have been aggrieved because of these sale transactions. To buttress his contentions, he has referred to the observations as made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Ibrahim & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Anr. 2009(8) SCC 751. 11. However, this contention is not tenable at this stage because while decidin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9127 of 2013) Decided on 02.07.2014 and therefore, he deserves the relief as sought in this petition. 15. Again, it is worth-while to mention here that the observations as made in Arnesh Kumar (supra) do not come to the rescue of the petitioner to seek the afore-said relief because the directions given therein pertain only to the cases involving the offences punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may extend to seven years, whereas the offence under Section 467 IPC is also involved in the present FIR besides the other offences as detailed therein and the said offence is punishable upto imprisonment for life. 16. To cap it all, this Court deems it appropriate and necessary to precisely discuss the conduct of the petitioner as the same would also be one of the key factors to adjudicate/ascertain his entitlement for the relief as prayed for in this petition. It has specifically been mentioned in Para 2 (VII) & (VIII) in the Reply, as initially filed by respondent No.2- Directorate, that the petitioner failed to comply with the order Annexure R-2/1 passed by Bombay High Court while granting him the relief of bail. He as well as his wife....