TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 550
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd that the FIR and charge sheet submitted by the CID, CB made out a prima face case of money laundering under Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (in short "PMLA Act") punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Accordingly, ECIR bearing No. ECIR/BBSZO/03/2018 dated 14.06.2018 was registered against the petitioner and investigation was taken up. In course of investigation, the residential premises of the petitioner were searched again and certain incriminating materials were allegedly recovered. It was further found that the said articles had been procured by the petitioner from the proceeds of the crime of illegal possession and sale of Monitor Lizard hemipenises and the same had been layered as movable properties in the form of bank balances in his name and in the name of his proprietorship concern. A provisional attachment order was made on 29.09.2019 and an original complaint has also been filed before the learned adjudicating authority, PMLA, New Delhi for confirmation of attachment of properties. On such facts, the aforementioned complaint was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Court under the PMLA Act, Khordha, Bhubaneswar. 3. Pursuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the amount of money involved in an offence as serious as money laundering is not material. It does not become a lesser offence only because the amount of money involved is less. Mr. Agarwal further argues that it is open to the petitioner to apply for bail by physically appearing before the Court but cannot invoke the provision under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. as a substitute for bail. It is also argued that the exemption from personal attendance is not a vested right conferred on the accused but is a matter within the exclusive discretion of the concerned Court. Moreover, such power is to be exercised not routinely but in rare cases only. The petitioner being a resident of Bhubaneswar, no hardship would be caused to him by physically appearing in the Court on the date of posting of the case. The petitioner's conduct in seeking repeated adjournments does not entitle him to any relief. Mr. Agarwal sums up his arguments by submitting that the nature of accusation, the severity of punishment likely to be imposed and conduct of accused do not entitle him to the benefit under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. Mr. Agarwal has also relied upon some decisions, which would be referred to later. 7. B....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s involved in illegal possession and sale of Monitor Lizard hemi-penises (Hatha Jodi) and horns of some wild animals (Shiyar Singi) in contravention of Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which is punishable under Section 51 of the Act and being Schedule Offence under the PMLA, 2002, which are nothing but "proceeds of crime" which amount around to Rs. 3,19,100/-. The proceeds of crime derived/obtained from such criminal activity is subsequently laundered by investing in movable properties (bank balances) and hence committed an offence under Section 3 of the PMLA which is punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA." Thus, essentially, the allegation against the petitioner is of obtaining Rs. 3,19,100/- as proceeds of the crime and if subsequently laundering the same by investing movable properties (bank balance). From a reading of the provision under Section 45, it is evident that the same is not intended to place an absolute bar for granting bail to accused under the PMLA Act. Even otherwise, an exception to the main provision is carved out in the form of a proviso. Thus, having regard to the fact that the proceeds of the crime allegedly laundered by the petitioner bei....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., summons was issued to the petitioner and not warrant and therefore, he did not submit himself to custody of the Court. Moreover, dispensing with personal appearance will not cause prejudice to anyone. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Gopal Agarwal has relied upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Lily Begum v. Joy Chandra Nagbanshi, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 39; TGN Kumar v. State of Kerala, reported in (2011) 2 SCC 772; S.V. Muzumdar v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd., reported in (2005) 4 SCC 173; Vijay Madanlal Choudhary v. Union of India, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 929; and Rohit Tandon v. Directorate of Enforcement, reported in (2018) 11 SCC 46. 12. On the basis of the decisions cited above, Mr. Agarwal, firstly submits that economic offences or white collar crimes cannot be equated with other cases because of their wide ramifications such cases have on the economic security of the country. He further argues that the petitioner has not made out any case for exemption from personal appearance as he is a resident of Bhubaneswar and can easily attend the Court without adversely affecting his business. By insisting for personal appearance, the learned Special Court ....