TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1676
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge sheet for the offences under Sections 120B, 201, 204, 384, 419, 420 r/w Sections 34, 35 and 37 of IPC and Sections 43, 66, 66(C) and (D) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. 3. The respondent No. 3 initiated proceedings in ECIR. No. 4/2020 under the provisions of Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 ('Act' for short) against the petitioner's brother and other accused. 4. On 27.11.2020, the Central Crime Branch registered the FIR in Cr. No .153/2020 against the petitioner's brother and other accused for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 384, 419, 420 and 471 IPC alleging that the accused had hacked the inter poker games. Based on the registration of the FIR in Cr. No. 153/2020, respondent no. 2 initiated proceedings in ECIR No. 1/2021 under the provisions of the Act against the petitioner's brother and other accused. 5. The petitioner who was working at Netherlands came to India on 12.08.2021, and he was issued with summons under Section 50 of the Act to appear before the 3rd respondent in ECIR. No. 1/2021 and pursuant to the same he appeared on 29.12.2021, 30.12.2021 and 01.01.2022 and his statements were recorded on the said dates of his appearanc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her statement was recorded. The six weeks time granted by this court to complete the investigation against the petitioner expired on 30.04.2023. Thereafter the 3rd respondent issued the impugned order rejecting the submitted by the petitioner for withdrawal of the LOC on 09.06.2023. 9. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned senior counsel would make the following submission: i) In the absence of cognizable offence registered against the petitioner and in the absence of reasonable grounds, the petitioner cannot be repeatedly summoned which would otherwise result in violating the principles of fairness, justice and the Rule of Law, more so when the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. The Petitioner cannot be expected to give a self incriminating statement which would otherwise result in dilution of rights under Section 50 of the Act. In support, he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263. ii) The writ petition filed under Article 226 r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable, since the petitioner in this petition is seeking quashment of LOC which has emanated from the proceedings under the PMLA, deprivin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the event, he does not cooperate with the investigation. 16. In the instant case, there is no cognizable offence registered against the petitioner nor a non-bailable warrant is issued against the petitioner. The petitioner is summoned solely on the ground that his brother has been implicated as an accused in the scheduled offences and under the PMLA, and also alleging that his father had transferred 50,000 GBP which is the proceeds of the crime to a third party. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that though the petitioner had the knowledge of transaction between his father and one Mr.Hanish Patel, he has not divulged the said information, and further the information given by the petitioner is not satisfactory, and the petitioner is deliberately suppressing the material information. Therefore, the Look Out Circular, at this stage, cannot be withdrawn. 18. Section 50 is a crucial provision and states that a person, who is being summoned for investigation must be provided with a written notice specifying the nature and the reasons for it. While the said provision does not explicitly use the term " Probable cause", it emphasizes the importance of provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estigation only when there exists a reasonable ground to believe that the said person has knowledge or information with regard to the commission of a crime. The principle of reasonable suspicion/ probable cause is fundamental to the criminal justice system and it ensures that persons are not subjected to investigation or summoned to give statements during the course of investigation which would otherwise result in violating the principles of fairness, justice and the Rule of Law, more so when the petitioner has cooperated with the investigation. The Respondent has not placed any material to substantiate that the suspicion or reasonable ground to summon petitioner is based on credible information, except that he is the brother of the accused. 22. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SELVI AND OTHERS -VS- STATE OF KARNATAKA, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263 at para 262 with reference to Article 20(3) and 161(2) Cr.P.C., has held that these provisions protect the accused, suspects and witnesses from being compelled to make self incriminating statements and the person concerned has right to remain silent on questions which may incriminate him. 23. Therefore, in the absence of any....