TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 171
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2022 in Enforcement Case Information Report (E.C.I.R.) referred to above. Mr Karpe, however, submitted that the L.O.C. is in accord with the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, and therefore, no ground is made to interfere with the same. 5. The material placed on record, in this case, shows that an F.I.R. No.10/2022 was registered by the Porvorim Police Station, Goa, on 22.01.2022 alleging therein that the Petitioner and two others are involved in offences punishable under Sections 420, 408, 120-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Regarding this F.I.R., the Petitioner and two others were arrested, and the investigation was handed over to the Crime Branch, Ribandar. 6. On 28.01.2022, based upon the above F.I.R. No.10/2022, the Directorate of Enforcement registered the above E.C.I.R. against the Petitioner and two others referred to in F.I.R. No.10/2022. Mr Lawande, learned counsel for the Petitioner, pointed out that from the perusal of F.I.R. and E.C.I.R., it is evident that only Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C. are scheduled o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to file its prosecution complaint under Section 45 of the P.M.L.A. against Ankur Khanna and Hardeep Singh for the commission of the offence of money laundering as defined under Section 3 of the P.M.L.A. Significantly, no prosecution complaint was filed either against the Petitioner or the other two accused persons in F.I.R. No.10/2022. Accordingly, on 17.06.2022, the learned Special Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 3 of the P.M.L.A. against Ankur Khanna and Hardeep Singh. 12. Similarly, the I.O. of the Crime Branch, Ribandar, filed charge sheet No.104/2022 on 23.12.2022 before the J.M.F.C. In this charge sheet, the only allegation is that the Petitioner is involved in the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Public Gambling Act, 1976. This charge sheet does not allege the commission of crimes under Sections 420 and 120-B of I.P.C., scheduled offences under the P.M.L.A. The charge sheet also does not refer to the offence under Section 408 of I.P.C. or Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The charge sheet shows that the charges under Sections 420, 120-B, 408 of I.P.C. and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2000 we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ause Mr Karpe submitted that the Petitioner was involved in playing the game of Poker. Therefore, there was suspicion about his involvement in the offence under the P.M.L.A. However, in the affidavit in reply or documents annexed to such affidavit, no material is produced based upon which the impugned L.O.C. came to be issued against the Petitioner. Mr Karpe no doubt expressed apprehension about the Petitioner fleeing from justice or not cooperating with the investigating agencies. However, Mr Karpe could not point out any material supporting such apprehension. 18. Mr Karpe did submit that the Petitioner might attempt to destroy or manipulate the digital trail, particularly if he travels abroad. In the affidavit in reply, it is admitted that the investigating agencies seized the Petitioner's mobile phone, laptop, and all other electrical devices. There is no dispute that all such digital devices are with the Respondent presently. Therefore, the apprehension now expressed is based upon no credible material. 19. Mr Karpe also urged that the Respondents are continuing with the investigation and that information obtained is already shared with the Crime Branch (predicate agency) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... No.1730/2022 on 20.06.2022 by the learned Single Judge of Karnataka High Court to submit that in similar circumstances the L.O.C. was not interfered with. 23. The Delhi High Court has considered S. Martin (supra) in Rana Ayyub Vs Union of India and others in W.P. (Crl.) No. 714/2022. The Delhi High Court observed that the allegations in S. Martin (supra) were that the Petitioner was non-cooperative and stalling the investigation. Based on such non-cooperation by the Petitioner, apprehensions were entertained about his attempting to flee from justice and evade the legal process. 24. As noted above, in the present case, there is no material to sustain any such apprehensions. Therefore, the decision in S. Martin (supra) will not apply. Instead, the principles in Rana Ayyub (supra) will apply where the Delhi High Court found that the Petitioner had appeared on each and every date the investigating agency had summoned the Petitioner. Therefore, the Delhi High Court ruled there was no basis for apprehension. 25. Dr. Bavaguthuraghuram Shetty (supra) was a case where the Petitioner was involved in the offence of defrauding public sector banks to the extent of 2800 crores. There Rs. wa....