TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 1173
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xports, Ludhiana had shown export of ready-made garments to the tune of Rs. 33.36 crores to Bangladesh during the financial year 2012-13 and on the said basis had claimed a VAT refund of approximately Rs. 1.56 crores from Government but upon inquiry by custom authorities, it was found that all the bills produced by the firm regarding export of garments etc. were forged and fabricated. In other words, the VAT refund of approximately Rs. 1.56 crores had been claimed solely on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and the said firm had never exported any garments worth Rs. 33.36 crores, as claimed to have been exported. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, one FIR i.e. FIR No. 126 dated 26.7.2013 was instituted at Police Station Division No. 5, Civil Lines, Ludhiana for offences under Sections 177, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against Raman Kumar Garg, Proprietor of M/s Jaldhara Exports, Ludhiana and upon conclusion of investigation, a challan was filed against the said accused. 3. The accused, after receiving VAT refund of Rs. 1,56,76,160/- in the account of M/s Jaldhara Exports, Ludhiana, transferred the same through RTGS in the following accounts :- (i) A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment Directorate pursuant to registration of ECIR, a complaint was instituted against Raman Kumar Garg, Vinod Kumar Garg and Umesh Kumar Garg @ Arjun under provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (Annexure P-3). March 2021 A supplementary complaint filed against the petitioner Seema Garg and two other ladies namely Sangeeta Garg and Saiyrah Garg. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner, while pressing upon his case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, has made the following submissions :- (i) that the petitioner has duly associated with the investigation proceedings conducted pursuant to registration of ECIR wherein the name of the petitioner was also mentioned but was never made an accused at the time of instituting complaint against Raman Kumar Garg, Vinod Kumar Garg and Umesh Kumar Garg @ Arjun and that since no further evidence has come up before the Investigating agency, there was no occasion to file a supplementary complaint, which otherwise also is not maintainable under any provision of Cr.P.C.; (ii) that filing of a supplementary complaint in terms of Section 44 of PMLA 2002 in the present cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lse but her own son and that it is quite natural and normal for a son to monetarily help his aged parents and mere transfer of amount cannot lead to an inference that the petitioner was also conniving with co-accused in the alleged scam; (vii) that since co-accused Umesh Kumar Garg @ Arjun is already on anticipatory bail and Raman Kumar Garg, who is the main accused, has been granted regular bail, the petitioner also deserves the same relief on grounds of parity; (viii) that fetters imposed in the matter of grant of bail by Section 45(1) of PMLA 2002, are applicable only to trial Court and not to High Court and in any case would be attracted to a petition for grant of regular bail and not to a petition for grant of anticipatory bail; and (ix) that since the petitioner is an aged lady, being aged 61 years, and that Section 45 of PMLA 2002, in any case, does carve out an exception in case of a woman for grant of bail and that neither the petitioner can be said to be the main accused nor there is any evidence to even infer that she had conspired or connived with the main accused, she deserves the concession of anticipatory bail particularly when she had alre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as statutory period of 90 days for filing challan (complaint under Section 44 of PMLA 2002) was expiring shortly and infact compaint against co-accused was filed on 22.12.2018. 8. The learned State counsel has concluded that keeping in view the gravity of the offences and also the conduct of the petitioner and as well as of the coaccused, who are all related to the petitioner, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. A prayer has, thus, been made for dismissal of the petition. 9. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 10. It is not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 30 lacs out of the amount of about Rs. 1.56 crores, alleged to have been received by the firm of the petitioner's son i.e. M/s Jaldhara Exports, as VAT refund on the basis of forged and fabricated documents, had been credited in the account of the petitioner's firm on 2013 and that on the same very day an amount of Rs. 29,97,000/- was withdrawn by way of three self-cheques and one cheque in favour of Umesh Kumar Garg. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had associated herself with the investigation and her statement was recorded on 23.11.2017 and it was, thereafter, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attachment proceedings initiated under Section 5 of PMLA 2002 are in the nature of civil consequences which follow upon commission of a criminal offence and are independent proceedings. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court reported as 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 49 (Division Bench) Kavitha G. Pillai, W/o. Late Sivadasan Nair Vs. the Joint Director, Director of Enforcement, Government of India & Ors., while elaborating on nature of proceedings under Section 5 of PMLA 2002, held as follows: "60. .... ..... ...... The question here is whether the attachment and the forfeiture under Sections 5 and 8 are civil or criminal proceedings. As we shall see, they are civil: the Adjudicatory Authority's conclusions do not prove the guilt of an accused, nor are they a step-in-aid to the accused's conviction. The conviction depends on the prosecution's proving the predicate offence-attachment or no attachment." 13. Given the nature of proceedings, which are independent civil consequences, setting aside of such proceedings would not ipso-facto affect continuation of criminal proceedings. In the present case, the order dated 6.3.2020 (Annexure P-4) vide which the attachment had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....secutor 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: Provided further that the Special Court shall not take cognizance of any offence 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. (1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other provision of this Act, no police officer shall investigate into an offence under this Act unless specifically authorised, by the Central Government by a general or special order, and, subject to such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 45 of PMLA 2002 apply with full force to a petition filed for grant of anticipatory bail as well and would be applicable even to petition filed in High Court. However at the same time, a proviso to Section 45 of PMLA 2002 itself carves out some kind of exception for leniency in cases of women. The first proviso to Section 45(1) of PMLA 2002 reads as under: "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." 19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a lady aged 61 years. It is a case where an amount of Rs. 30 lacs had been credited in the account of the firm of the petitioner by the firm of her son. It will be debatable as to whether the amount credited in the account of her firm was credited while she was fully aware that the said amount is part of 'proceeds' of crime committed by her son or as to whether she had connived and conspired with her son. It is otherwise not unnatural for a son to deposit amount or pass on some amount to ....