TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1382
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tory Receipts (hereinafter referred to as "GDRs" for brevity). The said GDRs were raised to a tune of USD 71.09 millions which is equivalent to Rs.318 crores in Indian currency. Out of the said amount, M/s Farmax India Limited received only Rs.2.20 crores and the remaining amount was never received by it. On enquiry, M/s Farmax India Limited came to know from Euram Bank, Austria that the amount raised by way of GDRs was misappropriated by the petitioner and others by forging the signatures and by pledging the forged documents. 4. In the matter of issuance of GDRs by M/s Farmax India Limited, Securities Exchanges Board of India (hereinafter referred to as "SEBI" for brevity) has passed final order dated 14.7.2020 holding that there is violation of SEBI (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 and that accused No.3- Arun Pacharia and others, in a planned and structured manner, mislead Indian investors. SEBI had also observed that accused No.3-Arun Pacharia orchestrated 14 similar GDR issues involving fraudulent schemes and he was already been debarred in one such case for a period of one year. SEBI also directed that M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se is made out against any of the accused in the present case and that there is no basis for initiation of proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate. Learned senior counsel further submits that the case registered in Crime No.664 of 2013 by Dundigal Police is a false one and the order rendered by SEBI itself establishes the said fact. Learned senior counsel states that even if the version of the Enforcement Directorate is taken to be true that the proceeds of crime were generated by sale of shares by accused No.3-Arun Pacharia, there is no connection between the said Arun Pacharia and the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be guilty of 'money laundering' as defined under Section 3 of PMLA Act, 2002. Learned senior counsel also submits that the petitioner is neither a beneficiary nor a person who is involved in generating the proceeds of crime. Learned senior counsel also states that the petitioner is a Chartered Accountant by profession and as a professional advisor to M/s Farmax India Limited, he might have given certain suggestions and that does not mean that the petitioner got involved in the transactions that went on. Learned senior counsel further subm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Farmax India Limited and he is responsible for GDRs issue. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that as per the investigation done, it is revealed that the petitioner forwarded necessary documents to prime accused i.e., accused No.3-Arun Pacharia and thereby, facilitated preparation of various documents and agreements. Learned Standing Counsel also submits that as per the investigation done, it is disclosed that the petitioner helped M/s Farmax India Limited in opening bank accounts in Euram Bank which is again related to accused No.3-Arun Pacharia. 9. Learned Standing Counsel also submitted that investigation done by the Enforcement Directorate revealed that the petitioner assisted in generation of huge proceeds of crime and he is also suspected to have invested the proceeds of crime in various movable and immovable properties. Learned Standing Counsel states that the petitioner is trying to shift the responsibility to different entities. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that there is every possibility of the petitioner fleeing away from India in case he is enlarged on bail. Learned Standing Counsel also states that he will certainly induce and threat the witnesses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) The limitation on granting of bail specified in subsection (1) is in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail." 11. Thus, when the release of an accused who is alleged to have committed offence falling within the ambit of PMLA Act, 2002, is sought for, the conditions laid down under the aforementioned provision have to be taken care of. There is every necessity for the Court to afford opportunity to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for submitting his contentions regarding the release of the accused on bail and where the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court should be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the applicant is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is also laid down that the above limitations are in addition to the limitations that are to be taken care as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 12. Referring to series of decisions, starting from the decision of the Hon'bl....